Will LBJ's reputation ever be rehabilitated?

[DevotedDemocrat]

In August 1974, Richard M. Nixon was probably one of the most reviled men in America. He had resigned in disgrace after dragging the nation through a year and a half of lies and a Constitutional Crisis surrounding Watergate, had presided over a floundering economy which he artificially pumped up in order to win re-election, expanded and continued the Vietnam War, costing America approximately 38,000 more deaths, despite running in 1968 on a campaign to end the war, and possibly sabotaged the chance for an end to the Vietnam War to come in 1968.

He did all of these things and plenty more, and yet in the years after his resignation, he embarked on an endless campaign to restore his image and reinvent himself as a respected elderstatesman, rather than a disgraced President. And today, many younger people wish Nixon was President and think he was great.

Now LBJ on the other hand gave America the Great Society--Everything from Medicare to Medicaid to Headstart and PBS. Literally everyone in America, young and old, has felt the effects of LBJ's domestic policies. He made Civil Rights and equality a reality and not simply an empty promise, and began in earnest environmental policies and education reform which made access to higher education easier. Yet it seems out of all this, the only thing he is remembered for is Vietnam, and because of Oliver Stone's movie, many young people think he's the guy who murdered Kennedy.

Do you think LBJ's historical reputation will EVER see some rehabilitation? Consider that upon leaving office in 1952, Harry S. Truman was utterly depised and was probably one of the least popular ex-Presidents because of Korea, yet within several decades, he began to become regarded as one of the best.

As the Boomer generation gets older and dies off, do you think LBJ's legacy will see the same sort of change that Truman's did? At the very least, could his Presidency get the same sort of whitewashing Nixon's did?

In comparison to Nixon's crimes, LBJ's failings seem like tragic mistakes.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I went to look up presidential rankings, and on average:

Nixon: # 32
Johnson:  #14/43 (Tied with Monroe and Obama[This is probably because there has only been 1 ranking with him in the chart, and he was 15th, for some bizzare reason.] )

Since you mentioned Truman, his place is #7 on average.

All data is from here.


So Johnson does have a reasonable reputation.

[Mechaman]

Johnson has a bad rep?  Seriously?

I would say that nowdays the whole Vietnam thing is actually way played down when people talk about LBJ.  It seems that most history lessons on him portray him as perhaps the most successful President in modern history who made the extreme misfortune of being on the wrong side of history on foreign policy.  Really, I think LBJ gets off far too light, given his crimes.  But hey, so does Richard Damn Nixon, who people only remember as "the President who got caught cheating".

Considering how many presidents there have been (though I think it would be safe to say that at least half of them were on a grade of "amazingly horribly bad or boring"), 44 Presidents, a ranking of say 14 isn't bad at all.  Now days, Andrew Jackson, who everybody and their grandmother idolized before the 1950's as an idol of liberalism, would probably be lucky to score #14.

So yeah, I think LBJ's image is doing just fine.  He just had the misfortune of being a warmonger at a time when it wasn't popular.

[Donerail]

Today, many younger people wish Nixon was President and think he was great.

Have you been hanging around Cathcon too much? You may be thinking of Reagan.

[TNF]

In the same manner Truman was? Absolutely. LBJ will be seen as one of the most monumental figures of the 20th Century, as he so well deserves for his work in ending Jim Crow.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

LBJ and Nixon belongs to a very specific category of Presidents: ones you can rank as near greats and failures at the same time.

Johnson was truly great President in regard to his domestic achievements: the Great Society and ending Jim Crow, but utterly failed in foreign affairs, which also led to end of the New Deal coalition and conservative realignment.

Nixon was great in his grand foreign policy initiatives: opening on China and Detente, and some domestic programs, while scoring a moral and political downfall of Watergate. Also there were nasty things like bombing Cambodia, coup in Chile and aiding sharp turn to the right domestically.

By the way, detente seems largely ignored or misunderstood today. It was not only a break from the height of cold war, which weakened U.S. badly needed, but also helped a great deal in emerging of opposition movements such as KOR, Solidarity, Czech dissidents etc.: something, as a Pole, I'm very grateful for.

[Peter the Lefty]

Remembrance of LBJ is already too fanciful.  Whenever you ask a lot of Democrats what they think of LBJ, they'll go nuts about the Great Society.  And when you mention Vietnam, they're response is "yeah but his domestic policies make up for it."  Really.  Social upliftment, equal rights, and health care for just the elderly (not for all, which is what it should have been) makes up for the slaughter of a million civillians (that's the number that died under LBJ, approximately) through napalm and intended wipeout of entire villages?  Makes me want to scream.

[Kitteh]

Remembrance of LBJ is already too fanciful.  Whenever you ask a lot of Democrats what they think of LBJ, they'll go nuts about the Great Society.  And when you mention Vietnam, they're response is "yeah but his domestic policies make up for it."  Really.  Social upliftment, equal rights, and health care for just the elderly (not for all, which is what it should have been) makes up for the slaughter of a million civillians (that's the number that died under LBJ, approximately) through napalm and intended wipeout of entire villages?  Makes me want to scream.

One important thing too is that LBJ was pretty moderate for his time on issues like civil rights and poverty. Had, say, RFK or even Hubert Humphrey been President they would have done even better on domestic issues than LBJ.

[TNF]

Remembrance of LBJ is already too fanciful.  Whenever you ask a lot of Democrats what they think of LBJ, they'll go nuts about the Great Society.  And when you mention Vietnam, they're response is "yeah but his domestic policies make up for it."  Really.  Social upliftment, equal rights, and health care for just the elderly (not for all, which is what it should have been) makes up for the slaughter of a million civillians (that's the number that died under LBJ, approximately) through napalm and intended wipeout of entire villages?  Makes me want to scream.

One important thing too is that LBJ was pretty moderate for his time on issues like civil rights and poverty. Had, say, RFK or even Hubert Humphrey been President they would have done even better on domestic issues than LBJ.

Nonsense. RFK was to LBJ's right and HHH didn't have the command of the Senate that LBJ did.

[DemPGH]

I think LBJ is pretty polarizing - he's essentially GWB. My father and several uncles served in Vietnam, and I've had ancestors in every war from the Revolution (they received land grants in Somerset County) to Vietnam, and what my father says about LBJ I cannot post here. Because it's a string of curse words. He voted Nixon in '68 and '72 because of LBJ (and a lot of the unions endorsed Nixon in 1972), and then every Democrat after that, including Carter twice to Obama in the present, even though Ford effectively ended Vietnam. That was an awful time of corruption and war-mongering - the late '60s and most of the '70s.

So what about the great society. Basic civil rights? Lady Bird's billboard business? Fantastic, but I would say that the country was not only ready but demanding of basic civil rights at that point in time. There were going to be no "doughfaces" then, because half the country would have been burnt to the ground. Literally. A good friend of mine was a cop in indianapolis at that time as well, and his stories surrounding race riots and shoot-outs are a whole novel in and of themselves. I think people who want to talk up LBJ and Nixon as "moderates" don't really have any idea what was going on then.

How LBJ is remembered is probably far better than he should be.

[Kitteh]

Remembrance of LBJ is already too fanciful.  Whenever you ask a lot of Democrats what they think of LBJ, they'll go nuts about the Great Society.  And when you mention Vietnam, they're response is "yeah but his domestic policies make up for it."  Really.  Social upliftment, equal rights, and health care for just the elderly (not for all, which is what it should have been) makes up for the slaughter of a million civillians (that's the number that died under LBJ, approximately) through napalm and intended wipeout of entire villages?  Makes me want to scream.

One important thing too is that LBJ was pretty moderate for his time on issues like civil rights and poverty. Had, say, RFK or even Hubert Humphrey been President they would have done even better on domestic issues than LBJ.

Nonsense. RFK was to LBJ's right and HHH didn't have the command of the Senate that LBJ did.

The point about HHH is reasonable, but where are you getting that RFK was to the right of LBJ?

[Kitteh]

Anyway, this quote is very appropriate for this thread:

I know I've said it before, but I just don't get the left's love of LBJ.  Decisions (and probably lies) made by LBJ lead to the deaths of millions of brown folk and hundreds of thousands of young healthy American men.  The left knew this in the late 60s but have forgotten to tell their children and students.

"Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"

The left at the time got the fire hose fighting him, the left today name him as one of the best Presidents the US has ever had.

[Peter the Lefty]

Yeah, RFK was well to the left of LBJ.

[RogueBeaver]

He's already ranked fairly decently, but both sides have various beefs with him that don't show any signs of disappearing.

[justfollowingtheelections]

RFK was really overrated when it came to civil rights.
Please watch the documentary "Freedom riders".  RFK called the Freedom Riders foolish, and thought they deserved to be taught a lesson (apparently for making him and his brother look bad) when the Mississippi police arrested them.  He only really began to care about civil rights when he realized that not doing anything made him look bad.
Also, lets not forget that his brother gave speeches to segregated (white only) audiences in the South while other prominent Democrats such as Stuart Symington refused to do so.
Ted was the only truly liberal Kennedy, fully capable of articulating progressive positions (because there's more to being a good politician than casting a vote) but he had his demons too.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Thurgood Marshall appointment outdoes sending blacks into nam harmsway.

This is single the most idiotic line I've read on this forum.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

His domestic achievements like nasa and thurgood marshall on SCOTUS outweighs a loss in Vietnam which didnt stop us from winning the cold war anyways.

[dead0man]

Yeah, screw the millions of pointless dead, he (arguably) moved civil rights forward 4 or 5 years!

[Paul Kemp]

Yea, Great Society is great and all but I can't really look past the millions of lives that were lost during his term.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I didn't think LBJ's reputation ever suffered that much.  And he only signed civil rights legislation to get ahead politically.  In the Senate, he repeatedly blocked civil rights bills.  He also is on record as making some very racist statements:

On his nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court

You must be logged in to read this quote.

After signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As a Senator, on the Civil Rights Act of 1957

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[DevotedDemocrat]

I didn't think LBJ's reputation ever suffered that much.  And he only signed civil rights legislation to get ahead politically.  In the Senate, he repeatedly blocked civil rights bills.  He also is on record as making some very racist statements:

On his nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court

You must be logged in to read this quote.

After signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As a Senator, on the Civil Rights Act of 1957

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) Anyone can fabricate a quote. Unless it's down on tape, I'd have to question it.

2) If you know anything about LBJ, he was a master manipulator who played to whatever audience he was in to gain support.

Civil Rights was a priority to LBJ. He spent the absolute last of his political capital on the Civil Rights Act of 1968 when he didn't have to--Could've easily sat out 1968 being the lame duck that he was.

[TNF]

I didn't think LBJ's reputation ever suffered that much.  And he only signed civil rights legislation to get ahead politically.  In the Senate, he repeatedly blocked civil rights bills.  He also is on record as making some very racist statements:

On his nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court

You must be logged in to read this quote.

After signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As a Senator, on the Civil Rights Act of 1957

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Assuming these are true (of which you've provided no evidence) does it surprise you that a man who was raised in a racist society would use racist terms to describe black Americans? Abraham Lincoln didn't even think blacks and whites could live together for the majority of his life, and wanted to deport blacks back to Africa as late as 1862.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Lyndon Johnson was a racist man, like nearly all white Southerners (in both parties; Southern Republicans were anti-CRA too). Being a racist doesn't mean you can't be a civil rights supporter either. Lyndon Johnson also said this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Kitteh]

Oldies, where the fyck did you get those quotations. All I'm finding are some sketchy blogs, not exactly credible sources.

[Frodo]

Oldies, where the fyck did you get those quotations. All I'm finding are some sketchy blogs, not exactly credible sources.

The only widely known book on LBJ that I can think of that he could possibly have pulled those quotes (assuming they're legit) would be one of Robert Caro's books on Lyndon Johnson.