Why is Truman regarded better than LBJ?

[DevotedDemocrat]

Both men became President under similar circumstances: They became President due to the tragic and unexpected deaths of two larger than life Presidents who were beloved by the public. FDR was considered almost a father figure to many in the US; He'd been President for 12 years, led the nation to victory over Depression and was bringing World War II to a triumphant end. JFK was a beloved, media friendly figure who led the nation through the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In comparison to the men they succeeded, both were generally common men of more plebian backgrounds, who lacked the patrician charm of the men they succeeded to the Presidency and lacked the rapport with and support of the media which their predecessors enjoyed. Both were men of average looks and average charm, lacking the good looks, charisma, wit and personal magnetism that FDR and JFK had.

Truman and Johnson in turn took on the job of finishing what their predecessors started and were very much popular in their first several years ("Give 'em Hell, Harry!" and "All the way with LBJ!") and were elected to their own terms. Both attempted (Johnson successfully) to expand upon the New Deal drastically--with Truman's Fair Deal and Johnson's Great Society. Many of their legislative programs were similar (a program similar to Medicare was wanted as part of Truman's Fair Deal). Both took politically dangerous steps toward Civil Rights--Truman desegregated the military and Johnson signed the landmark Civil Rights Laws of 1964, 1965 and 1968.

Both, however, in their elected terms, engaged the US in unpopular wars in Southeast Asia, both of which were costly in terms of lives and money, and both wars left the US divided. When Truman and Johnson left office, there seemed to be no end in sight to Korea and Vietnam respectively, and the war was brought to an end by their successors.

Both Truman and Johnson were reviled when they exited office. Their successors ran on repudiating them and their legacy and on ending the respective wars.

Yet, historically, Truman now is looked upon as one of the greatest Presidents we've ever had, while Johnson is still almost as reviled as he was in January 1969.

Why so?

I'd argue domestically LBJ did much, much more than Truman....Truman inherited a war which was mostly already won thanks to FDR and our Generals, with the European Front collapsing less than a month later, and made decisions any other President who didn't want to be impeached would've made and ended the war with Japan fast, using weapons which had been developed under FDR's direction.

[Lief 🗽]

LBJ dramatically improved the lives of tens of millions of poor people. The neoliberal establishment frowns on such things.

[7,052,770]

Vietnam is the main reason why LBJ isn't considered one of the greatest ever.  He gets an A on domestic policy, but an F on foreign policy.

[DevotedDemocrat]

Vietnam is the main reason why LBJ isn't considered one of the greatest ever.  He gets an A on domestic policy, but an F on foreign policy.

Johnson did however start Detente, though we didn't call it that until Nixon. The Johnson Administration marked a thawing in US-Soviet relations which Nixon expanded on, named and claimed as his own.

Also, like I said, Truman had Korea. Korea being so divisive and ugly that Truman was reviled because of it, and like Johnson, didn't make it in the primaries in 1952 and so dropped out of the 1952 election.

Vietnam was similar in terms of casualties when LBJ left office as Korea was when Truman left office. It was only under Nixon that our involvement Vietnam later expanded (Laos and Cambodia) and the casualty list went from around 28,000 to 58,000.

And recently released stuff shows we were pretty close to a peace settlement in the Fall of 1968, which was undermined by Nixon to get elected. And that isn't a conspiracy like the "October Surprise" conspiracy regarding Reagan; In the case of the Chennnault affair with Nixon, it's a fact, and the only reason it never got out was because Johnson worried what it would do to the country to have it revealed that a nominated candidate for President was undermining peace talks, and also because he felt he'd be accused of playing petty politics or lying about it.

[dead0man]

Truman wasn't an asshole.

[DevotedDemocrat]

Truman wasn't an asshole.

About 250,000 Japanese people who died in Atomic Bomb blasts between August 6th and August 9th 1945, and countless others who later died of radiation poisoning or cancers or who were scarred for life with radiation burns or born with deformities or who years later drank contaminated water and later died from cancer, would disagree with you.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Truman wasn't an asshole.

About 250,000 Japanese people who died in Atomic Bomb blasts between August 6th and August 9th 1945, and countless others who later died of radiation poisoning or cancers or who were scarred for life with radiation burns or born with deformities or who years later drank contaminated water and later died from cancer, would disagree with you.

     It was pretty much the most bloodless option on the table. If he had tried invading Japan, many more than 250,000 people would have died.

[DevotedDemocrat]

Truman wasn't an asshole.

About 250,000 Japanese people who died in Atomic Bomb blasts between August 6th and August 9th 1945, and countless others who later died of radiation poisoning or cancers or who were scarred for life with radiation burns or born with deformities or who years later drank contaminated water and later died from cancer, would disagree with you.

     It was pretty much the most bloodless option on the table. If he had tried invading Japan, many more than 250,000 people would have died.

I'm not disagreeing with decision. Regretfully, with all things considered, it was probably the most practical decision, as you've said. I can't call it the RIGHT decision morally or otherwise, but it was the most bloodless and most practical.

I'm just saying, to call LBJ an asshole, you could look at ANY President and find something which would brand him an asshole, you know what I mean? I mean one could easily look at Jackson and the Trail of Tears and say the same, or view FDR interring the Japanese as a big time 'asshole' moment. Or Clinton going and signing DOMA. Or Adams signing the Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798 and so on.

[7,052,770]

I mean one could easily look at Jackson and the Trail of Tears and say the same

I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that one.  The Trail of Tears was a scaled-down Holocaust.

[DevotedDemocrat]

I mean one could easily look at Jackson and the Trail of Tears and say the same

I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that one.  The Trail of Tears was a scaled-down Holocaust.

Very much true, but even Andy Jackson isn't quite as reviled as LBJ is.

I mean hell Jackson was Harry Truman's idol. Reading on Jackson is what might've gotten Truman interested in politics in the first place.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Are you ModerateDemocrat1990?

[morgieb]

Vietnam was a lot more ugly than Korea.

Other than that, not sure.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Truman generally deserves the credit he gets though. Without his guts, the Democrats would have never been able to break with their Southern wing to the extent that LBJ did in the 1960's, in fact even LBJ's actions in the 1950's as Senate Majority Leader might have been impossible.

[DevotedDemocrat]

Vietnam was a lot more ugly than Korea.

Other than that, not sure.

From what I've read and seen, Korea was no playground and was quite brutal and bloody in it's own right, the only (and a big) difference is that the blood, brutality and guts weren't televised nightly.

[7,052,770]

Vietnam was a lot more ugly than Korea.

Other than that, not sure.

From what I've read and seen, Korea was no playground and was quite brutal and bloody in it's own right, the only (and a big) difference is that the blood, brutality and guts weren't televised nightly.

Probably so, but South Korea turned into a developed high-tech country and ally. Vietnam didn't. Even if that's not totally fair, that's a big factor in their judgments.

[DevotedDemocrat]

Vietnam was a lot more ugly than Korea.

Other than that, not sure.

From what I've read and seen, Korea was no playground and was quite brutal and bloody in it's own right, the only (and a big) difference is that the blood, brutality and guts weren't televised nightly.

Probably so, but South Korea turned into a developed high-tech country and ally. Vietnam didn't. Even if that's not totally fair, that's a big factor in their judgments.

True, but Vietnam fell long after Johnson was out of office, even after he was dead. One can't really blame a dead man for things he didn't have any control over.

[TDAS04]

Overall, Truman was at least among the best Presidents since FDR.  However, I do have reservations about how he nuked Japan.  Going nuclear itself was probably the right decision, since it probably saved a larger number of lives in the end.  I do have a serious problem with the fact that he immediately targeted the dense population in Hiroshima, instead of exploding a nuke over an area with a more sparse population.  Not only that, but Japan was given virtually no time to respond and a second nuke was dropped on Nagasaki, killing thousand thousands more civilians.  That I find a little disturbing.  Actually, his successor Ike also expressed doubt in his writings.

[Blue3]

I don't understand why Truman is so popular, honestly.

But as for LBJ... Vietnam.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

LBJ deserves plenty of blame for Vietnam, but he was still one of our better Presidents. And at least he didn't expand it into Laos and Cambodia. Or have South Vietnam walk out of the peace talks.

Truman just didn't accomplish as much domestically. Also, the Korean war could have been handled better, although he does get points for firing MacArthur.

[badgate]

David McCullough is more accessible than Caro.

[dead0man]

Truman wasn't an asshole.

About 250,000 Japanese people who died in Atomic Bomb blasts between August 6th and August 9th 1945, and countless others who later died of radiation poisoning or cancers or who were scarred for life with radiation burns or born with deformities or who years later drank contaminated water and later died from cancer, would disagree with you.

It's got nothing to do with that.  Nearly everybody that knew LBJ, even his supporters, thought he was an asshole.  Why?  Because he was an asshole.  People in general don't like assholes.  Sure, some people can get past that and still like them, why do you think they let the forum mascot stay around for so long?

[DevotedDemocrat]

Truman wasn't an asshole.

About 250,000 Japanese people who died in Atomic Bomb blasts between August 6th and August 9th 1945, and countless others who later died of radiation poisoning or cancers or who were scarred for life with radiation burns or born with deformities or who years later drank contaminated water and later died from cancer, would disagree with you.

It's got nothing to do with that.  Nearly everybody that knew LBJ, even his supporters, thought he was an asshole.  Why?  Because he was an asshole.  People in general don't like assholes.  Sure, some people can get past that and still like them, why do you think they let the forum mascot stay around for so long?

Even if he was an asshole, it served his causes well, and it got things done. If he wasn't such a pushy, manipulative, wheeling and dealing asshole we might not have Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, Higher Education Grants, or the Civil Rights Laws of '64, '65 and '68. He may have been an unpleasant person at times (and I've read he could be both terribly unpleasant and yet also very nice as well and good to those he felt were loyal or friends to him), but IMO he was a great leader.

[dead0man]

I'm not arguing that (in this thread), I was just answering the question you asked in the OP.  Truman is better regarded than LBJ because LBJ was an asshole and Truman wasn't.  You can bring in all the actual accomplishments you want, it doesn't matter.  If Truman was also an asshole, we wouldn't have this thread because then he wouldn't be regarded better than LBJ.

[pbrower2a]

Truman wasn't an asshole.

About 250,000 Japanese people who died in Atomic Bomb blasts between August 6th and August 9th 1945, and countless others who later died of radiation poisoning or cancers or who were scarred for life with radiation burns or born with deformities or who years later drank contaminated water and later died from cancer, would disagree with you.

The Japanese should have surrendered earlier -- at the latest soon after the collapse of Nazi Germany. That would have saved even more lives, and their leadership should have known what was coming. The atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not end the war; by September Japan was on the brink of famine and economic collapse. Governments on the brink of defeat don't tip the situation to their enemies.  

     It was pretty much the most bloodless option on the table. If he had tried invading Japan, many more than 250,000 people would have died.

[Akno21]

Circumstance, more than anything else. LBJ carried out Truman's containment policy in Vietnam -- I don't think we can say conclusively Truman would've behaved much differently from Johnson in the foreign policy realm. Truman just had the fortune to oversee an unpopular war during a time when myriad cultural and social factors weren't conspiring to make that unpopular war the symbol of everything supposedly wrong with the American establishment. I think if Truman were president in the late '60s he'd have suffered largely the same fate.