If it wasn't for 'Nam would LBJ be one the best Presidents in the 20th Century?

[NOVA Green]

So--- LBJ actually got a ton of s**t done on American Domestic politics.

He had the balls to bust the Dixiecrats of the Deep South (that even JFK wasn't able to do).

He expanded Medicare and Medicaid, developed an entire policy position based upon "The War on Poverty" that included everywhere from his humble roots in Central Texas, to rural Appalachia, as well as poor communities of color in the cities and rural areas throughout America.

LBJ not only expanded the legacy of the New Deal to many communities abandoned by the progress of the New Deal, but as a poor White Boy from Texas, was actually able to get a ton of stuff done that JFK didn't do, and might well have not done, even if he had not met with an untimely demise at the hand's of a domestic terrorist in Dallas Texas on that fateful date in '63.

I honestly believe that if it weren't for Vietnam, LBJ would likely be viewed as one of the best American Presidents of the 20th Century.

Thoughts???

[OSR stands with Israel]

CSPAN already considers him one

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He'd be top two together with FDR.

[Hoosier_Nick]

Yes, would be number three after Lincoln and FDR. With Vietnam he's at about 13.

[NOVA Green]

Yes, would be number three after Lincoln and FDR. With Vietnam he's at about 13.

Thanks Hoosier Nick---

Question however was of the 20th Century (Since you mentioned President Lincoln)---

So maybe your statement was different than your vote, in that if we were to open to the top presidents of all time, including those of the 18th and 19th Century, certainly there are many, including myself that would likely put President Lincoln towards the top of the list of best Presidents prior to the 21 st Century, not to mention various votes for Jefferson, Madison, Adams, JQ Adams, Andrew Jackson, from various posters etc.

We might even have a few random people voting for Pierce, Buchanan, or Chester Arthur....

So--- if we cap the Presidents of the 20th Century and start with Teddy Roosevelt and end with Bill Clinton, I think we have had 17 Presidents.

Apologies to y'all for not clarifying in more detail, prior to posting the poll...

Anyways, everyone feel free to revise their votes, create the their top lists and all that good stuff that we like to do, trying to be objective and not simply obsessed with the political rhetoric and dynamics of the 21st Century Presidential politics....   

[Antonio the Sixth]

Without contest.

[NOVA Green]

So now that I opened the "Proverbial Pandora's Box".... I will post a list of my top five picks of the 17 Presidents that we had in the 20th Century, based upon their overall economic/social/foreign policy impacts with a brief rationale:

1.) FDR (Dem)---- Let's face it, despite his privileged economic background and physical disabilities, the man was able to not only rebuild the US economy after the Great Depression, but also win a two front war on the European & Asian fronts against Nazism/Fascism/ and Japanese Imperialism.   

I can't think of a single US President in the 20th Century that was able to deliver so much, especially in terms of foreign affairs and economic policy. Arguably, the struggle for Civil Rights was on the back-burner until "after the war was over", but no question that FDR had the Dixiecrats in his crosshairs had he not died before the War was over.

2.) Eisenhower (Rep)--- To some this might seem like a curious choice, but let's face it, he did a pretty awesome job overall in terms of not only keeping us out of foreign wars, unlike the Truman Administration), presided over a period of peace and prosperity, with the highest level ever of Union Membership in the United States ever (33%), and additionally deployed the National Guard in the Deep South to enforce Civil Rights.

Granted, he an easier gig than Roosevelt, but still if you look at US Foreign Policy in the Middle East for example, he cut the British down to size when they were trying to reclaim Egypt during the Suez Crisis, was seen as a fair player in general when it came to Pax Americana in the Post WW II era, (Although unfortunately the Dulles Brothers were creating black eyes throughout Latin America w/o Presidential approval).

3.) LBJ (Dem) *** (Assuming he hadn't escalated the War in Vietnam to an insane level)

 His single greatest accomplishment was obviously driving the final nail into the coffin of Jim Crow, segregation, the Dixiecrats, and White Supremacist rule in the Deep South, with the passage of the Civil Voting Rights Act, which arguably only a Democratic President would have been able to do at the time.

It was a major act of political courage, but sometimes things are more important than just a few election cycles, or even decades later when it comes to the decision of what is right or wrong.

Elsewhere, major expansions of the Social Safety net (Medicare & Medicaid), funding to provide electricity and running water to poor rural communities, where that used to be considered a luxury, as part of a broader "War on Poverty" that dealt with urban poverty as well.

Unfortunately, Vietnam doomed his historical legacy, even though ultimately he was only following in the policies of Eisenhower and Kennedy, when it came to propping up French Colonial rule in SE Asia.

4.) Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive/Rep)

Well, on domestic policy he certainly did a number on the Capitalist Trusts and "Monopoly Capitol" that dominated the US Economy at that time....

Now one can certainly argue that his "Gunboat Diplomacy" actions in Latin America was part of the closest thing to European Colonialism, that we had yet experienced in our nation's history, but I give him enough props in how he changed domestic politics, to still place him in the top five.

5.) Woodrow Wilson (Dem)

So look at all of the progressive economic policies that Wilson championed and won when it came to Monopoly Capitalism, the most progressive economic changes that we had seen until FDR.

Additionally, although Wilson didn't initially take a side in WW I, since we were neutral in the War between various European Colonial Powers, but eventually got us into the mix in '17.

Now, I look at Wilson's handshakes with the Southern Segregationist wing of the Democratic Party, the repression of the Labor Movement under his Administration, and it makes we want to spit on the ground with disgust....

Ok---- so plenty of alternate options for #5....

Truman--- Well he did try to push through Roosevelt's platform of integration of the military. He also was the dude that sent US soldiers with bayonets against striking workers after the war was over. Not to even mention, going way over the top when it came to the Civil War in Korea that not only cost the lives of 60,000 Americans, but was fundamentally motivated more by paranoia in Washington when it came to the Chinese Revolution than anything else.

JFK would certainly be a potential #5 option, but what did he actually accomplish as President in his few short years in office? So, he had some great speeches and all that, continued on the legacy of his predecessors when it came to the Civil Rights Movement in the Deep South, but on foreign policy we were signing Free Trade Agreements right-left and center, overthrowing governments all over the world, and starting to dramatically escalate the War in Vietnam.

Nixon is obviously out of the equation....

Ford---- Ford Who? Is that the owner of a US Auto firm in Michigan?

Carter- Decent guy, but really congress did most of heavy lifting on policy and after the foreign policy crises in Afghanistan and Iran was basically a lame duck against anyone other than Reagan....

I could fast forward through Bush Sr and Bill Clinton, but not really seeing any major positive changes in economic, social, and foreign policy related items.

But hey--- post your top 5 and why, not to mention the original poll and question regarding LBJ.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Without Nam, he certainly would have gotten a second term, but there's the rub. Even if he doesn't escalate in 1965, Tet will bring Nam up as an issue. Either we go in strong then or 1975 happens 7 years early. Neither is likely to reflect well on LBJ historically.

[Person Man]

Democrats would now be in better footing with National Security types who weren't turned off by desegregation though maybe it was Iran that was the Black October to them instead of Vietnam.

[Sir Mohamed]

Absolutely. I would still rate him, despite Vietnam, as one of the three best presidents during the 20th century.

[Santander]

The War on Poverty led to what is now the War on Freedom, so obviously not.

[Shadows]

So now that I opened the "Proverbial Pandora's Box".... I will post a list of my top five picks of the 17 Presidents that we had in the 20th Century, based upon their overall economic/social/foreign policy impacts with a brief rationale:

Clipped

Nova - IMO FDR is the greatest US president & possibly one of the best ever. He didn't just rebuild the economy, he created a new economic system & had one of the highest & most equitable growth phases ever. He changed the way government was supposed to be, proved that it had a duty to protect people.

Glass Steagall, Securities & Exchange commission, Social Security, Deposit insurance, New Deal massive Infrastructure & conservation programs (like Tennessee Valley authority) which build long-term assets & created huge jobs & ofcourse radical programs like Minimum Wage which would destroy the so-called free market of wages. He showed that you can't expect the market to auto-correct itself & have to stimulate it (which every country did). His GDP growth numbers & Unemployment numbers is unmatched & showed consistent improvement. And then you have foreign policy successes. Not just high growth & huge job numbers, but the tax increases on top earners reduced income inequality sharply & created a more equitable distribution of wealth.

LBJ was a legislative genius who is credit for Medicare & Medicaid, The Civil Rights act & many ground-breaking initiatives. The war on poverty too with food stamps & many other ground-breaking initiatives. IMO domestic policy wise LBJ was one of the most successful President's even (perhaps after FDR). Just by the sheer volume of domestic policy success, he is a Top 3/5 President ever. But Vietnam drags him down. He would have won another landslide election & would be remembered as the best President since FDR if not for Vietnam !

[MasterJedi]

Without Vietnam he probably could have won another term and that likely changes everything on how people see him.

[Sir Mohamed]

Without Vietnam he probably could have won another term and that likely changes everything on how people see him.

I think, if re-elected in 1968, Johnson likely wouldn't have been president until January 1973, regardless of Vietnam. He would have been dead by some time in 1971 due to his health problems what leaves us with President Humphrey for another one and a half years. In 1972, either George Romney or Nelson Rockefeller would have beaten Humphrey.

[RINO Tom]

CSPAN already considers him one

Uh, who cares?  LOL.

Anyway, not at all.  He did two really great things - the CRA and the VRA - and it took HUGE majorities from Republicans in Congress to get it done.  He also spent a career watering down civil rights legislation for the Southern Democrats and then championing a weaker bill to play "good cop" in Washington, so I happen to think he's a total POS, but I'll try to just judge his Presidency here.  He'd be okay for those two achievements alone, but nowhere near "one of the best."  Vietnam just ensures that he doesn't even sniff the list.

[Sumner 1868]

the CRA and the VRA - and it took HUGE majorities from Republicans in Congress to get it done.

Misleading. While every Democratic member outside the South voted for it, this is not true of Republicans. 24 Republicans outside the South voted against the bill in the House, and six of the seven Republican nays in the Senate were north of the Mason-Dixon line. Therefore, if we exclude the Southern Democrats the opposition came exclusively from Northern Republican. is it a coincidence that Gallup polling from the time showed a slight majority of registered Republicans opposed the CRA and they nominated a presidential candidate who voted nay?

[The Mikado]

Isn't that like saying "If it wasn't for the Depression, Herbert Hoover would be the best Republican President in the last century?"

[dw93]

Isn't that like saying "If it wasn't for the Depression, Herbert Hoover would be the best Republican President in the last century?"

Apples and Oranges. LBJ had a long list of Domestic Policy successes that were/are overshadowed by Vietnam. What policy successes (foreign and domestic) did Hoover have that were successful?

[RINO Tom]

the CRA and the VRA - and it took HUGE majorities from Republicans in Congress to get it done.

Misleading. While every Democratic member outside the South voted for it, this is not true of Republicans. 24 Republicans outside the South voted against the bill in the House, and six of the seven Republican nays in the Senate were north of the Mason-Dixon line. Therefore, if we exclude the Southern Democrats the opposition came exclusively from Northern Republican. is it a coincidence that Gallup polling from the time showed a slight majority of registered Republicans opposed the CRA and they nominated a presidential candidate who voted nay?

I've always found that "stat" dumb.  The Democratic Party spent decades funneling millions into those Southern Democrats' reelections, gladly accepted their votes for leadership from them, eagerly worked with them on other policy initiatives and, despite historical revisionism, were hardly chomping at the bit to provoke the faction with civil rights legislation.  Because the region eventually switched preferences (30 years later, LOL), the Southern caucus of the Democratic Party gets to be shed away as some de facto third party, glorifying the "Northern liberals"?  These were Democrats.  They were respected and praised by and held prominent positions with the national party.

[Sumner 1868]

eagerly worked with them on other policy initiatives

Odd way of viewing things. The Southern Democrats opposed the entire New Deal consensus and used their to weaken it as much as possible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whites shifted instantly, but the Voting Rights Act somewhat reduced the impact at first.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the 30s, yes, but by the 50s and 60s people like Douglass, Humphrey, and Proxmire were "chomping" about it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They basically were a de facto third party whose main objectives were to stall the New Deal consensus as much as possible (unless their districts were in TVA country).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True. And yet, by 1964 the main obstacle to civil rights outside the South was the Republican Party, whose supporters were more likely to oppose the CRA than support it, who campaigned for California's racist Proposition 14, and who ran a presidential candidate who voted against the civil rights bill. Why do you think every Democratic member of Congress not from the South voted for the bill but not every Northern Republican?

[vanguard96]

So--- LBJ actually got a ton of s**t done on American Domestic politics.

He expanded Medicare and Medicaid, developed an entire policy position based upon "The War on Poverty" that included everywhere from his humble roots in Central Texas, to rural Appalachia, as well as poor communities of color in the cities and rural areas throughout America.

LBJ not only expanded the legacy of the New Deal to many communities abandoned by the progress of the New Deal, but as a poor White Boy from Texas, was actually able to get a ton of stuff done that JFK didn't do, and might well have not done, even if he had not met with an untimely demise at the hand's of a domestic terrorist in Dallas Texas on that fateful date in '63.

I honestly believe that if it weren't for Vietnam, LBJ would likely be viewed as one of the best American Presidents of the 20th Century.

Thoughts???

If one views the War on Poverty a success or at least a noble mission and also considers the New Deal as a great thing then naturally one would love LBJ, racist warts and all. I do not and view LBJ as the third worst president of the 20th Century behind only Wilson and FDR in terms of the damage done toward encroaching the power of the state.

[The Mikado]

Isn't that like saying "If it wasn't for the Depression, Herbert Hoover would be the best Republican President in the last century?"

Apples and Oranges. LBJ had a long list of Domestic Policy successes that were/are overshadowed by Vietnam. What policy successes (foreign and domestic) did Hoover have that were successful?

The point is that Vietnam is far and away the most important and impactful part of his Administration and outweighs any other accomplishment. You can't just handwave it. It's as important to LBJ's story as the Depression is to Hoover or the First World War is to Wilson (neither of whom would want to be identified with either of those crises and both of whom had interests in wildly different areas overshadowed by the gigantic era-defining crisis they're assessed on).

EDIT: Launching a war under false pretenses that involved the defoliation of ancient forests, the mass murder of over a million civilians, the wasteful and pointless deaths of nearly sixty thousand American soldiers and the injuries and imprisonment of far more, and culminated in destabilizing and crumbling a regime in Cambodia that led to the genocidal murder of millions absolutely outweighs anything LBJ did on the domestic front, by such an order of magnitude that the two aren't comparable.

[vanguard96]

[quote }
Isn't that like saying "If it wasn't for the Depression, Herbert Hoover would be the best Republican President in the last century?"
[/quote]

Although he was very activist from 1930 on, Hoover is considered 'laissez-faire'. This is more a smear on classical liberal values than Hoover in my opinion.

This association of Hoover with 'doing nothing' and 'laissez-faire' did considerable damage to the reputation of the free market.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Absolutely. I would still rate him, despite Vietnam, as one of the three best presidents during the 20th century.

[dead0man]

the left doesn't care about dead brown people unless a righty did it.