Rate the Presidents, Installment #36: Lyndon B. Johnson

[JonathanSwift]

Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1969

Previous Results
Abraham Lincoln: 4.45 Stars
George Washington: 4.42 Stars
Chester A. Arthur: 3.8 Stars
Dwight D. Eisenhower: 3.7 Stars
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: 3.67 Stars
Thomas Jefferson: 3.65 Stars
Theodore Roosevelt: 3.59 Stars
James Monroe: 3.57 Stars
John Quincy Adams: 3.5 Stars
Grover Cleveland: 3.46 Stars
Grover Cleveland: 3.46 Stars
John F. Kennedy: 3.43 Stars
Harry S. Truman: 3.38 Stars
James Madison: 3.23 Stars
William Howard Taft: 3.15 Stars
Zachary Taylor: 3.15 Stars
James A. Garfield: 3.14 Stars
Calvin Coolidge: 3.12 Stars
Ulysses S. Grant: 3.06 Stars
Martin Van Buren: 3.04 Stars
James K. Polk: 2.85 Stars
John Adams: 2.58 Stars
Warren Harding: 2.48 Stars
William McKinley: 2.47 Stars
Andrew Jackson: 2.43 Stars
William Henry Harrison: 2.38 Stars
Woodrow Wilson: 2.36 Stars
Millard Fillmore: 2.33 Stars
Benjamin Harrison: 2.33 Stars
Rutherford B. Hayes: 2.15 Stars
Herbert Hoover: 2.11 Stars
John Tyler: 2.11 Stars
Andrew Johnson: 1.72 Stars
Franklin Pierce: 1.6 Stars
James Buchanan: 1.41 Stars

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

3 stars, great on voting rights, escalated war in Vietnam.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The start of a long line of horrific failures and abysmal mediocrities in the highest office (that ended in the election of 2008).

The highest I can give is two, mainly due to the VRA etc. not that I give him that much credit - it was the work of numerous grassroots campaigners that he would desperately coopt for his own "legacy". Whatever. His "legacy" actually turned out to be one of the most blunderous, self-defeating and criminal conflicts the country ever has dealt with, so he cAn suck it.

[Blair]

Domestic Program was on the whole good-a whole raft of civil rights bills were passed from housing to voting. Likewise his great society project, has to be praised including the expansion in social security. 

Foreign Policy however was awful

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I like blacks and olds. 4.

[Blair]

I like blacks and olds. 4.

Just not Vietnamese

[ScottieF]

Five stars. Really more like four, but I'll give him five because I imagine he's not going to rank nearly as high here as I think he ought to. Vietnam was, of course, horrific, but there's an argument to be made that it was necessary in order to win support for his domestic programs at home - and the significance of those really cannot be understated. Civil Rights, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, urban housing, removal of all immigration quotas, Social Security expansion, public broadcasting, education funding; I could go on, but the Great Society is a virtual laundry list of progressive achievements that fundamentally reshaped the United States in ways that are so ingrained into society that they're taken for granted.

[Zioneer]

Domestic Program was on the whole good-a whole raft of civil rights bills were passed from housing to voting. Likewise his great society project, has to be praised including the expansion in social security. 

Foreign Policy however was awful

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Two stars as President, but I voted three stars in honor of his political talent.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I also think the famed Johnson Treatjent was both overstated in importance and glorified bullying/corruption.

[TDAS04]

4 stars.  Not a very nice person, but a pretty good president.

[Crumpets]

1963-1965 five stars
1966-1969 two stars.

Voted three stars.

[ElectionsGuy]

Is 0 stars possible?

[Antonio the Sixth]

4 stars, would be 5 without Vietnam.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Honestly, if he didn't get baited into escalating a hopeless proxy war, he would have been a five-star President. Drafting untold thousands of young men into a meat grinder is a horrific blot on his record, though, even though he didn't start the ball rolling. Three stars, unfortunately. Easily the best Democratic President since Cleveland when it comes to domestic policy.

[The Last Northerner]

Five stars. Really more like four, but I'll give him five because I imagine he's not going to rank nearly as high here as I think he ought to. Vietnam was, of course, horrific, but there's an argument to be made that it was necessary in order to win support for his domestic programs at home - and the significance of those really cannot be understated. Civil Rights, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, urban housing, removal of all immigration quotas, Social Security expansion, public broadcasting, education funding; I could go on, but the Great Society is a virtual laundry list of progressive achievements that fundamentally reshaped the United States in ways that are so ingrained into society that they're taken for granted.

More bombs were dropped during Operation Rolling Thunder on a tiny half of a nation than against the Japan during WW2. But that's okay because 'muh healthcare'.  This argument sounds awfully close to making sure the trains ran on time.

2 Stars (not an apologist for war criminals).

[Mr. Smith]

4 stars, would be 5 without Vietnam.

[DemPGH]

The start of a long line of horrific failures and abysmal mediocrities in the highest office (that ended in the election of 2008).

The highest I can give is two, mainly due to the VRA etc. not that I give him that much credit - it was the work of numerous grassroots campaigners that he would desperately coopt for his own "legacy". Whatever. His "legacy" actually turned out to be one of the most blunderous, self-defeating and criminal conflicts the country ever has dealt with, so he cAn suck it.

I completely agree, and I find it a little bit of an historical irony that LBJ and W. bookend that awful period. Personally, I think they're a good bit alike, albeit for different times.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

5 stars despite Vietnam because he's one of the few Presidents who really did any good for this country.

[TNF]

Zero stars, as he is a mass murderer that waged an imperialist war against the freedom fighters of North Vietnam

[SWE]

5 stars despite Vietnam because he's one of the few Presidents who really did any good for this country.

Unfortunately he didn't do much good for the people of other countries, like in, say, Southeast Asia

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I will give him that his SE Asia policy although less popular was far less monsterous than his successor's. Not that that says very much at all.

[RogueBeaver]

Awful on everything except civil rights, so 2 stars.

[Clark Kent]

Terrible on everything but civil rights, and even the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was largely the product of Everett Dirksen rather than LBJ. He also voted against all civil rights acts prior to 1957 and watered the 1957 act down to almost nothing. One star.

[Blair]

Terrible on everything but civil rights, and even the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was largely the product of Everett Dirksen rather than LBJ. He also voted against all civil rights acts prior to 1957 and watered the 1957 act down to almost nothing. One star.

Didn't Evertt Dirksen literally have to be dragged to the 1964 civil rights bill?