Is it hypocritical...

[TNF]

Absolutely.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Not that in anyway I approve of that bastard LBJ, but Jackson's actions were genocide, which ramps him up in the evilness stakes.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Well, the Great Society was a good thing. It doesn't eliminate Vietnam, but it certainly softens the blow. For example, Grant and Harding both had very corrupt administrations, but Grant's corruption is outweighed by his civil rights record.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Genocide is not a numbers game.

[Mr. Smith]

Jackson committed genocide, and ultimately didn't even have to do what he did...even supposing it were true that white settlers were going to take the land anyway. In the end, I wouldn't be surprised if he did what he did just to spite John Marshall. He didn't try to prevent Indian removal either.

LBJ was stuck in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation after the actions of Kennedy and Eisenhower...any elected President after JFK and Eisenhower would've been forced to do that, and no candidate unwilling to do that would be elected. And on a certain level, South Vietnam was in dire need of aid. And it wasn't genocide.

And for all that he did in that regard, he honestly did try to pursue a peace treaty, which would've worked if not for Nixon's treasonous power grab.


So no, it's not hypocritical...and frankly it's quite simplistic to suggest it is.

[AggregateDemand]

I don't absolve LBJ, though I'm not sure his handling of Vietnam was more problematic than his handling of his own country.

[RINO Tom]

I won't comment on the comparison, as I'm not entirely sure, but I do find this fascinating:

Andrew Jackson was once galvanized by Democrats as the first true man of the people, the father of American populism and progressivism.  Only very recently have the Democrats "dumped him," and I suspect LBJ will one day get the same treatment.  When Great Society is a distant memory and the main thing kids are learning about in school during that time period is Vietnam, and the civil rights movement is rightfully tied to the preachers, students and activists that made it happen and not some opportunistic politicians, Democrats will be talking about how LBJ was a racist war mongering Southerner who'd be a Republican if he were still alive, LOL.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I won't comment on the comparison, as I'm not entirely sure, but I do find this fascinating:

Andrew Jackson was once galvanized by Democrats as the first true man of the people, the father of American populism and progressivism.  Only very recently have the Democrats "dumped him," and I suspect LBJ will one day get the same treatment.  When Great Society is a distant memory and the main thing kids are learning about in school during that time period is Vietnam, and the civil rights movement is rightfully tied to the preachers, students and activists that made it happen and not some opportunistic politicians, Democrats will be talking about how LBJ was a racist war mongering Southerner who'd be a Republican if he were still alive, LOL.

To be fair, the lionisation of LBJ is mainly a latter day thing, by nostalgic liberals who wish the 60's coalition could be reassembled. LBJ was reviled by liberals well into the 90's, and even now his supporters are being contrarian against the 'established narrative'.

[AggregateDemand]

I won't comment on the comparison, as I'm not entirely sure, but I do find this fascinating:

Andrew Jackson was once galvanized by Democrats as the first true man of the people, the father of American populism and progressivism.  Only very recently have the Democrats "dumped him," and I suspect LBJ will one day get the same treatment.  When Great Society is a distant memory and the main thing kids are learning about in school during that time period is Vietnam, and the civil rights movement is rightfully tied to the preachers, students and activists that made it happen and not some opportunistic politicians, Democrats will be talking about how LBJ was a racist war mongering Southerner who'd be a Republican if he were still alive, LOL.

It never ceases to amaze me that modern Democrats view the Southern Democratic wing of the party as the root of all evil, along with Republican corporatist blue-bloods, but Democrats still won't let go of LBJ.

Weird people.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I won't excuse LBJ for his actions in Vietnam (though blaming him for the entire war is very inaccurate), but comparing them to Jackson's treatment of Native Americans ignores several key differences between the two. Namely, Jackson's Indian policy was racially motivated and illegal, while the Vietnam war was politically motivated. Both were abhorrent and deserve to be condemned, but there is a big difference between killing people for the sake of killing them and killing people because you believe that it is a national security prerogative.

[SWE]

Well, the Great Society was a good thing.

And? There were positive aspects of Jackson's administration too.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes it is