Reply #10: Sure, but the Civil Rights movement made it worthwhile for him to do so [View All]

[Strawman]

He wanted to be seen as a national leader because it was good for his ambitions (rather than a Southern Segregationist), and he was always competing with RFK (read Jeff Shesol's book on this). The pressure back then was coming from LBJ's left. That's because of the Civil Rights movement (which was bigger than just MLK too).

As Robert Caro argues, LBJ's personal ambition paralleled the aim of social justice represented by the Civil Rights movement during the 1960's. If it hadn't, he would have chosen differently. Ambition always won out. The Civil Rights movement even made RFK more liberal. He was a bit late to the cause, but the movement opened his eyes.

I doubt the Clintons were really making the argument that LBJ was essential and that MLK was less essential. I don't think they're that stupid. I think they were probably just trying to say that being a skillful political operator in Washington is underrated and essential. That's a fair argument to make. They just were very clumsy about it.

Can we all just agree that both were essential to progress? It's a stupid argument.