CNAS on the NSP: Echos of El Sal

[jmm99]

CAP here = Community Action Program; not the Marines' CAPs in Nam (although that was also, in part, local political action).

The CAP program was part of the OEO (Office of Economic Opportunity) started in 1964, by formation of Community Action Agencies. The Head Start program began there as well, but was spun off in 1969. The CAAs varied from locality to locality in quality, purposes, etc. - this one is fairly typical of the present program as I know it.

The idea was based on a Saul Alinsky model ("all politics are local"; as opposed to the "Rodham" model - large government programs). Over the 40 years that my wife worked in it, the program morphed. Aside from some instances of local corruption and incompetence, the major problems were:

1. Increase of bureaucratic control in the Fed and state agencies involved in oversight and funding.

2. Diversion of funding to larger (more governmental) programs, which look better on legislative resumes. E.g., various forms of welfare programs.

In the case of my wife's consortium (a number of CAAs) the sources of major funding changed over the years from Fed > State of Michigan > Private (not a bad thing).

The net result to her was a rather cynical attitude toward government programs that "help" the poor (welfare programs) - and towards politicians in general. She still has a torch she carries - give a break to the working poor (emphasis on "working"), who do get screwed in our system.

My own perception for the relative non-effort by government toward CAP was that it was potentially too dangerous for politicians because it was not part of their political machines. When politics becomes truly local (with organized community groups), demands are made on - and questions asked of - politicians. They do not like that.

[Ken White]

...The net result to her was a rather cynical attitude toward government programs that "help" the poor (welfare programs) - and towards politicians in general. She still has a torch she carries - give a break to the working poor (emphasis on "working"), who do get screwed in our system.

I can identify -- strongly -- with that. I can also apply it to the Armed Forces and their programs to 'help' the troops...

My own perception for the relative non-effort by government toward CAP was that it was potentially too dangerous for politicians because it was not part of their political machines. When politics becomes truly local (with organized community groups), demands are made on - and questions asked of - politicians. They do not like that.

I can equally strongly agree with that.

Reminds me also of your recent posts on the Shadow Supply System which was a well known and not classified phenomenon in all of Southeast Asia in the very early 1960s. Invariably, the Politicians and local Generals were most upset about it because it intruded on their 'perks.'

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the MACV Staff used it as an argument to not properly set up and fund the FID effort to the potential exclusion of big unit actions. I have been told but cannot verify that the later classification of the activity was requested by the government of south Viet Nam and that request was acceded to for some interesting reasons (and if correct, valid to me) pertaining to some of our programs.

[John T. Fishel]

JMM, interesting you should mention these but not Peace Corps. The Great Society CAP grew, to some extent, out of programs overseas, especially in Latin America - the Alliance for Progress in particular. Peace Corps, in tis early years - and again, especially in Latin America - focused heavily on community development. LBJ's war on poverty/Great Society incorporated the community development experience in the CAP programs, helped to support them with VISTA volunteers (domestic Peace Corps derivative). Many of the community organizers (where have we heard that term?) - especially the VISTAs - got their tactics from Alinsky's Reveille for Radicals. Some of the tactical learning was from the textbook; much was not - it was just in the air...

I was an undergrad and grad student during this time. 2 undergrad summers working community development in Mexico - 1 rural with the American Friends Service Committee, 1 urban with a bunch of Jesuits, seminarians, and secular college kids in Mexico City. As a grad student, I worked in rural Peru and collaborated with local governments and Peace Corps vounteers while I was researching my doctoral dissertation. So, the all politics is local notion was very much a part of what I was involved with and, I should point out, it was in my experience, a very successful development model.

Interestingly, and bringing this discussion back to where it started, Amb. Corr during this period, was detailed from the Foreign Service to Peace Corps staff where he was Peace Corps Country Director for Colombia. That experience clearly influenced the way he thought about development strategies when he was Ambassador to El Salvador.

Cheers

JohnT

[jmm99]

JTF
JMM, interesting you should mention these but not Peace Corps.

it's just that I have lived with "CAP" for 40 years. Can't say the same for the Peace Corps, although a friend was one of its directors.

As to Alinsky, my preference is his later "Rules for Radicals", which is a more mature version of his methodology.

[John T. Fishel]

an excuse to expand on the theme. I, personally, liked both Reveille and Rules. Who says civilians don't have tactical doctrine manuals?

One of the things that I find puzzling is that Peace Corps - except for the period when it was lumped with a bunch of other agencies (which your friend took care of) has pretty much stayed the same - although its focus has changed over the years as the needs of the countries in which it operates have changed, the internal USG volunteer programs have changed their names and focus over the last 40 years including term of service. Alinsky might have hypothesized that the reason was the threat to local power elites posed by these organizations if they were allowed to become instituionalized.

Cheers

JohnT

[marct]

I, personally, liked both Reveille and Rules. Who says civilians don't have tactical doctrine manuals?

LOL - I grew up with those two (plus a certain little Red Book), got the chance to meet Alinski (I think I was 6 or 7 at the time; a big protest in Toronto), and got a ground floor look at "civilian tactical doctrine" via my parents and the rest of my family who were founding members of the NDP . When I grew out of my "Socialist Phase" (about age 8 or 9), I carried over a lot of that tactical doctrine and still use it today in my teaching.

Alinsky might have hypothesized that the reason was the threat to local power elites posed by these organizations if they were allowed to become instituionalized.

I'd agree with that, John. We saw the same thing happen up here, and it really makes me mad (it's also getting much worse under our current Provincial gov't). It's not so much the local elites who are the problem, at least here, it's the neuveau, self-procalimed elites (the older elite families were either staunch, right wing [NOT neo-con] Conservatives or NDP).

[John T. Fishel]

Successful COIN really means making a better Revolution than the insurgents can make. Maybe that's why we keep reinventing VISTA with a new name every few years.

Cheers

JohnT