Daniel Patrick Moynihan: Wise Beyond His Years and Universally Relative

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, The Intellectual in Public Life presents a thorough overview of Moynihan’s life and his role in the public policy arena in three sections: Ideas, Office, and The Man. This paper concentrates on Moynihan’s work in the Senate as a reflection of his political observations and is limited to the Office and Ideas sections, respectively. Over his lifetime, Moynihan proposed and passed significant legislation in response to his own political observations, which were usually far ahead of his time and accurately predictive of the future. These observations also drew attention to issues that were fading from the agenda or had gone unnoticed or neglected. Moynihan made seemingly small-range issues relevant to broad understandings of government; thus, forcing attention to them. For instance, instead of attacking ethnicity problems head on, under the category of ethnicity or race, he approached them as broad social analyses. In his various writings, Moynihan moved “from using the ethnic factor as a searchlight to examine our own society and its problems to extending it to illuminate obscure issues all over the worldâÂ?¦” (15) He also pointed out the root of a problem as the most effective means of solution, rather than keeping the focus on very specific issues. As a Senator, his committee choices, legislative endeavors, and written works reflected his observations and supported his political philosophies.

Moynihan’s study of the Irish illustrates the aforementioned philosophical techniques and his ability to make issues relevant to a broad scope. His study examines “ethnicity more broadly, and not only from the point of view of working politics, which imposes on all involved the necessity of being aware of and knowledgeable about the role of ethnic factors in New York.” (16) He starts with an ethnic factor directly applicable to New York City and develops it into an issue relevant to the entire Democratic Party. Through a study of the “social and cultural features” which the Irish brought to both the Democratic party and the Roman Catholic Church (18), Moynihan discovered a prominent hierarchical tradition tracing back from the Irish countryside, from which they had immigrated. At the time, the reform Democrats in New York were determined to reject a hierarchical tradition within political parties, attempting to bypass the traditional step-by-step process to power. “This was, as Pat saw, an ethnic revolution – it was Jews and WASPs who did not believe in the old forms and, using the strengths available to them because of their education, their connections, and their access to the press, transformed the politics of New York City and State.” (20) This therefore, made “Irish social mobility a plodding affair,” (19) making it rare for Irish to rise to the highest social and governmental positions. It did, however, create a “solid middle class.” (19) This evaluation was a reminder, at a time when attention on European immigrant groups was fading, that these factions were still developing in relation to one another and affecting the societal structure. More importantly, it explained not only the revolution of the Democratic Party in New York City, but its significance to the State and the entire party as well, presenting ethnicity as a necessary factor in this transition.

This technique is also seen in his relation of ethnicity to international relations. His observations first prove the specific problem of ethnicity as it relates to international politics. Next, his solution addresses all international relations in general as a means of correcting this issue. He cites for example, “the ethnic divisions that persisted in Soviet Russia” (21) and the inconsistencies between this government’s words and actions. He writes, “‘Great Russians prattle on about the equality of ethnic groups in the Soviet Union, while Ukrainians in Washington rally in protest at the Russian embassy.'” (22) This proves the complexities ethnicity causes in international relations. It is rectified, he argues, only by a balance of “both the principle of self-determination and the principle of integrity of every existing state and its borders.” (23) International law is the only means of rectification because of its general scope. Its “further development can guide us in dealing with the difficult problems ethnicity raises in international relations,” (23) because making international laws which do not exclusively address ethnicity, but rather the problems resulting from it, indirectly trickles down to ameliorate the ethnicity problem itself. The United Nations, he argues, “embraces” the aforementioned principles and possesses the potential to achieve this balance, especially through its ability to create and enforce international law.

As a Senator, “Moynihan did not get a seat on [a] Foreign Relations [committee] until 1987; but in the 1970s he made himself a force on foreign affairs,” (137) which is expected due to his past experience as an American ambassador. In his book Pandaemonium, he predicted the end of the Soviet Union and the instability resulting from struggles over atomic weapon control. Therefore, he voted “with the foreign policy doves, but for different reasonsâÂ?¦” believing that “the defense buildup of the 1980s was largely unnecessary.” (138)

Turning to his ideas on public works, Moynihan had a lasting effect on all aspects, including transportation, architecture, waterways, water supply, and city-planning. In all of these, he made important legislative reforms in concurrence with his political observations. Take for instance, his Public Works Improvement Act of 1982 which was too extreme to be passed. “It would have put the federal government on the road to creating a capital budget separate from the operating budget.” (76) However, Moynihan compromised with an Act of the same name in 1984, which “was aimed at developing reliable public works data and correcting the federal budget’s systematic account bias against capital investments.” (76) It also established a National Council on Public Works Improvement whose 1988 report “helped set the tone of public works debate, such as it has been, for the past decade.” (77)

This progress stemmed from Moynihan’s observations on the state of public works in government. First, he noted that “public works ceased to be a ‘significant, continuing public issue,'” (74) which he called the act of “disinvesting in infrastructure.” Therefore, things like transportation, water, or waste-management fail in their functions because of federal neglect to the importance of routine maintenance and funding. He cites the reasons for the decline of public works as, “government regulations and an excess of public process,” (74) as well as a failure in organization and accounting of budgetary information. For instance, “federal funds just haven’t been availableâÂ?¦ for the single purpose of helping to build and maintain basic urban water-supply systems. Water supply could be funded only if combined with some other purpose such as navigation, irrigation, or flood control.” (72) For prevention of such disparities, Moynihan advocated coordination between funding and action – planning before spending, citing “eastern states [which] had been, in essence, born too soon, sharing the misfortune to have been settled and to have built their infrastructure solely with their own resources in the centuries before federal subsidies were available.” (72)

Moynihan’s 1960 article, “New Roads and Urban Chaos” in The Reporter turns to the issue of transportation. “Written just four years after the interstate highway program was enacted, âÂ?¦the article exposed the questionable assumptions underlying the program, explained the politics that motivated it, and accurately predicted its drastic impact on the city and American life.” (78) He made observations on disparities in highway funding that were never pointed out before – how many states, despite an increase in federal funding, were still unable to build interstates, and generally, how the “the interstate program got going despite the lack of need” (79) because of persistence by various political factions and industries. “Moynihan was countering in advance almost every delusional notion that has shaped the conventional wisdom in highway debates since.” (79) In following, one of Moynihan’s first committee choices as Senator was Environment and Public Works. Later, he opposed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 in an article. “By the early 1990s, he was perfectly positioned to act: He was chair of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over transportation programsâÂ?¦ and the highway bill was coming up for reauthorization.” (141) He worked with his committee to form a new highway plan, and “the result was the Intermodel Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act, which encouraged states to use federal monies not only on limited-access highways but also on other modes of transportationâÂ?¦ It also provided for the reimbursement of New York State for the thruway built almost forty years before.” (141)

In the area of architecture, Moynihan intervened in several specific federal projects with the concern of “reestablishing government interest in public architecture of lasting quality.” (87) He believed “that architecture, in particular, is a visible decoder of inchoate public values.” (91) In his “Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Federal Office Space,” he listed “Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture,” in which he reinvented the discipline in regard to American federal buildings, proposing a more “noble, humanist public architecture.” (86) He also rejected the notion of having an “official style,” at a time when it was the prevailing standard of the American government. He changed the standards of federal architecture by himself intervening in numerous building projects such as the Prudential Building in Buffalo, Foley Square and Pennsylvania Station in New York, and several projects in DC.

Even Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s time as a Senator, as only a small chunk of his expansive political career, is indicative of his original thinking, keenness of his political observations and philosophies, and support for these ideas as basis for his actions in the Senate. His ability to address problems in broad ways as a means of dealing with the smaller issues, not only proved effective as solutions, but helped to draw attention to these issues in government policy. The writings and legislating resulting from his beliefs, still resonate in public policy and political debate. Moynihan’s Senate career was “the disciplined product of an original thinker whose ideas dazzle and a political operator whose skills are hiddenâÂ?¦” (144)