Lyndon Baines Johnson was the most liberal president in US history.

[Maddy McCall]

I am speaking of domestic policy only. Leave Vietnam out of the discussion.

Tell my why you either agree or disagree.

[unblock]

1. first prove he was more liberal than fdr

[Maddy McCall]

4. How exactly was FDR liberal?

His most liberal domestic economic policies were enacted to prop up consumerism instead of to alter the problems with capitalism.

If it weren't for Eleanor, he would have lacked a social conscious. When he died, blacks still lacked civil rights, Jim Crow was firmly entrenched, and he hadn't even given the weight of his presidency to supporting anti-lynching legislation.

And, on edit, there is that little matter of Japanese-American internment.

[unblock]

9. whatever.

[Zomby Woof]

57. such an in-depth and thoughtful rebuttal

You must lack an argument to counter her, and instead react with disdain - an emotional response, rather than a reasoned one.

[unblock]

87. nonsense. i could write a book on how dismissive her argument was

i just don't have the time, i'm leaving on a business trip shortly.

my point was that the burden's on her, not on me.

she made a sweeping dismissal that economic liberalism is a capitalist prop and therefore somehow doesn't count as liberal. her idea of liberalism appears to be dismantling capitalism, which is a crock. i say "appears to be" because i don't have much to go on.

"i assert x, prove me wrong", which was the original post before she edited it (and what i was responding to) is a pretty lazy post and i don't see why anyone should get on MY case to have a thoughtful "rebuttal" when the burden should be on the original poster to come up with something more compelling in the first place.

[Maddy McCall]

88. I proved my point...

Am waiting on you to prove how FDR was MORE LIBERAL domestically than LBJ was.

You can respond when you get back from your business trip. (The time it took you to write your response to which I am now responding would have been adequate to rebut my argument, though.)

[unblock]

90. did you learn your debating skills from shrub?

make an assertion
put burden of proof on the wrong
dismiss the other side's main arguments as irrelevant
redefine established terms (liberal) to serve your own point
claim victory


fdr's massive jobs programs, social security, all that was just a prop for consumerism and therefore not liberal. ah, i see, how wrong of me. guess he was a conservative in your book.

hmm, lemme try your way:

lbj was a conservative tool, all his victories were merely riding the wave of social unrest and taking credit for jfk's proposals. he pushed massive blocks of whites into the republican party in order to ensure conservative domination well into the next millenium.

i win!

[Maddy McCall]

91. LOL! You think that LBJ was a conservative tool?

Please go read up on your history. While you are at it, check out David Brinkley's "The End of Reform" and see what historians think about FDR's liberalism.

Still laughing that you think FDR was a conservative tool. How...how...uninformed of you.

[unblock]

92. i was mocking you debating techniques

still laughing that you thought i actually thought that.
how ... how ... dense of you.

oh, and i said lbj, not fdr.
still laughing at your reading skills.
how ... how ... pathetic of you.

[Maddy McCall]

93. Trying to recover after that "whatever" comment, eh?

Keep trying. It's obvious what you are doing.

Shifting the focus to a typo instead of making an argument to validate your assertion shows bad debating skills.

I reiterate, pick up a book on FDR and read it. You might be surprised what historians think about him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

107. Historians Seem To Think Very Highly Of Him

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/presrankings1.html

[sangh0]

122. But not as a liberal

.

[slowroll]

96. Wow.

Think I'm with you on this exchange.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

102. I Agree With You And Disagree With You...

Arthur Schlessinger in his seminal work on FDR has argued convincingly that FDR was a conservative in that he conserved capitalism by saving it from itself by ridding it of it's excesses...


But he was not a conservative as we know it today...

[ProudToBeLiberal]

78. lol, very very enlightening

[ArtVandaley]

132. Ever hear of the New Deal?

Social Security?

[bemildred]

133. LOL.

:thumbsup:

[genius]

22. You are right. Though I think if FDR had been pres in 60s, he would have

been more liberal. He was the one who got things started.

[Maddy McCall]

26. I agree with you there.

:-)

[Syrinx]

66. me too n/t

[bemildred]

2. Lincoln freed the slaves.

Match that.

[Maddy McCall]

3. And wanted to deport them to Africa.

LBJ passed two civil rights acts and then enacted social programs more liberal than New Deal programs.

[bemildred]

5. Prove it. nt

[Maddy McCall]

12. That Lincoln wanted to deport freed slaves?

I thought EVERYONE knew that. But I'll be glad to "prove it."

Abraham Lincoln believed that "if a Negro is a man, then my ancient faith teaches me that all men are created equal." Yet he also stated that because "there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality," he strongly favored colonization of the blacks (to Liberia, Haiti, anywhere but within the US). He was disgusted by the thought of amalgamation of black and white races. In response to Stephen A. Douglas, he concluded that, "the separation of the races is the only perfect preventative of amalgamation."

Lincoln is thought of as the Great Emancipator, but he thought of the African race as one that was inferior and unsuitable to live in a while society. Because he did not successfully carry out his plan of black colonization, it is rather easy to skip that section of his history. However, even only days prior to his assassination, he asked General Benjamin F. Butler to study the possibility of shipping the blacks to another location. Even after the failure of earlier attempts, Lincoln still desired the separation of the white and black races. During a speech at Cincinnati in September of 1859, Lincoln stated that "there is room enough for us all to be free," but he wished the blacks to live freely on another land mass.

http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ihy970228.html

[bemildred]

15. Ok, I concede the point.

I knew of some of his statements on the subject. You have shown
at least that it's a credible opinion.

So now, you do know that LBJ was from Texas, and Texas had
Jim Crow laws? And LBJ never did diddly squat about it until the
Civil Rights laws were passed in the Sixties? SO how is that
different from the case with Lincoln freeing the slaves?

[Maddy McCall]

25. Because as president, Lincoln had national jurisdiction.

LBJ was never a Texas legislator, and thus was not empowered to change state laws.

HOWEVER...

He was a United States Senator, and, as Senator, LBJ indeed DID work to change Jim Crow laws. He supported the 1957 Civil Rights act that sought to enable the black vote. Within a year of being sworn in as president, he had passed the Civil Rights Act that ended segregation.

Looking at realms of influence, LBJ definitely did all he could for black social and political equality.

LBJ's social consciousness originated in his early life, when he was a teacher in impoverished Texas schools.

[JohnKleeb]

27. wouldn't he had to been governor to support change in the jim crow laws?

Yes, thats how he got his conscience through being a teacher of mexican school children but he was poor himself too I believe.

[bemildred]

39. Eh, you are reading too much there.

I just said his position evolved, and Lincoln's evolved,
each in their historic context. LBJ grew up in a racist
culture and rose above it, in some degree, and so did Lincoln.
And I consider freeing the slaves a more important step than
partially undoing the effects of misgovernment and racism that
came later. But opinions will vary.

Edit: LBJs 1957 support for voting rights noted, forgot that.
I have seen varying opinions about his attitude on civil rights,
but that certainly supports the idea that he did have a real
concern about the issue, or that he looked at it more positively
than his peers at the time, that he was 'advanced" on the subject.

[sangh0]

123. Lincoln was NOT in favor of resettling blacks

I don't have the documentation in front of me, but if you re-read that link, the idea that Lincoln supported resettling blacks is based on an edited quote. If Lincoln's entire words had been quoted, you'd see that he was arguing the opposite.

Also, I wouldn't put much faith in an essay by a high-schooler. And the high-schooler that wrote the essay has her references cited at the bottom, and at least two of them are names I recognize as racists who have tried to misportray Lincoln in the past.

[bemildred]

127. I considered those arguments, and decided to leave it.

The "he wanted to deport them" claim was off the line of argument
I was pursuing anyway, an attempt to undermine the significance of
the emancipation proclamation, and I was trying to express myself on
LBJ.

[sangh0]

130. If you want to "undermine" the significance of the EP

then point out that it only freed slaves in the rebel states.

[bemildred]

131. I have no idea why she choose "he wanted to deport them" instead.

Post #129 examines the issue nicely.

[sangh0]

137. Yes, that was a good link

it puts Lincoln's wordsa nd actions into it's proper context.

Much better than some edited quote lifted out of a high-school essay

[bemildred]

129. Here's a lecture on the subject:

Was Abraham Lincoln a racist or liberator? In Lincoln's own time, it's unlikely this question would have arisen. Today, however, re-writing history according to personal whim has become a cottage industry of astonishing proportions. To offer another perspective, we asked author Edward Steers, Jr., to share his insights on Lincoln as emancipator. Dr. Steers gave this presentation at Fort Ward in Alexandria, Virginia, on February 23, 2002.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/books/steersward.htm

[sangh0]

134. That's more like it

Colonization was Lincoln's remedy to allay the fear of large numbers of freed Blacks infusing Southern culture. It was an effort to soften the perceived blow of emancipating Blacks and make it more palatable. Lincoln had always, in my opinion, looked on voluntary colonization as part of his emancipation package for this reason.

The rejection of Lincoln's compensation plan by southern interests, particularly in the Border Sates, put an end to such thinking on Lincoln's part. Lincoln had extended his hand only to have it slapped away. It had taken only ten days after the proclamation was issued for Jefferson Davis to tell Lincoln what he could do with his proclamation -- with or without compensation and colonization.

On January 1, 1863, Lincoln pulled the trigger and signed his Emancipation Proclamation with no mention of colonization. It was a dead issue with Lincoln. He never again mentioned colonization in any public document. And yet Mr. Bennett would have us believe that Lincoln pushed colonization right up to the end of his life.

The real question is not why Lincoln supported colonization, but why he abandoned it so abruptly if, as Lerone Bennett claims, he envisioned it as a method of "ethnic cleansing."

In Lincoln's pragmatic view, colonization was an effective tool to defuse the politically charged issue of what to do with all of the slaves freed during the war. His views on colonization had nothing to do with a delusional dream of a "lily-white America."

If Lincoln had wanted to "deport" all of the Blacks as Mr. Bennett claims, he showed poor judgement in his subsequent policies -- especially calling for the enlistment of African-Americans into the Union army in his final proclamation.

The idea that Lincoln would favor the removal by colonization of Black males who were potential soldiers runs counter to common sense. Lincoln's support of colonization may have had several motives behind it, but Lincoln was far too brilliant a politician to believe that "a lily-white America" was obtainable or even desirable through a plan of voluntary colonization.

Lincoln did not support colonization as a goal in itself. Instead, he only supported it as a means to an end (abolition) and once he had the opportunity to achieve that end without resorting to colonization, he dropped the idea.

[janx]

6. How can you leave Viet Nam out of the discussion--

especially now?

[bemildred]

7. He has to.

Blows his argument completely out of the water if you allow VietNam into it.

[janx]

11. To me, Chimpy and LBJ are almost synonymous. n/t

[Maddy McCall]

14. I would say that Bush and Wilson are more similar...

neocon politics can be traced back to Wilson.

Domestically, how would you say that LBJ and Bush are alike?

I don't see many similarities in the Great Society with Bush domestic privitization of governmental programs.

[bemildred]

18. Yeah, Wilson is best match I can think of.

Though Raygun is a fair match in some regards.

[janx]

19. You cannot ignore foreign policy when it comes to Chimpy

and Cornpone. You might like to, but you can't.

They're the same ignorant-assed crusaders. Sorry. Partisanship only goes so far.

P.S. I can't help but notice the similarities in the way they treat their dogs, either.

[JI7]

21. Bush's domestic policies such as on Economy has a lot to do with what

his foreign policy is.

[janx]

23. And LBJ's didn't?

Think about it.

[JI7]

30. not really, more about the cold war

Johnson's domestic policies were about economic justice and civil rights. Bush's is the opposite and his foreign policy is part of it.

[sangh0]

139. Part of LBJ"s motivation for social justice and civil rights

was due to criticism from the USSR and Red China over these issues. Of course, LBJ's own life experiences certainly contributed to his policies, but the Cold War provided him with a justification for those policies, policies which he strongly opposed when he was in the Senate.

[T Town Jake]

74. Yes, exactly right...Wilson wanted to "Save the world for Democracy"...

...Bush wants to both "save it" in the same sense and do a little thievery on the side while he and his neo-con friends are at it...

[Leilani]

40. Truer words have never been spoken!

The 2 worst Presidents of my lifetime...Shrub & LBJ.

Everytime I post this opinion, I get trashed.

Both lied us into illegal wars.

Both corrupt, & both stole elections.

Both spent the country into ruination.

Both arrogant, nasty, SOBs.

Both constantly humiliated subordinates around them.

Both, through their lies & misguided policies, divided the country.

Both lied about military service.

Bush enriches his cronies; LBJ enriched himself through sweetheart deals on radio & TV stations.

I could go on, but those are the basics.

[bemildred]

46. He was a lying son of a bitch, and corrupt too.

And a warmonger. However, I consider Raygun worse than LBJ.
And Nixon. But some would say, "why choose", they are all swine.
Jimmy is the only one I have any respect for, and he got nowhere.

[fujiyama]

67. Yeah

LBJ was worse than Nixon and Reagan.

:eyes:

[amazona]

103. not hardly

Reagan's only achievement was to prove that even an advanced ALzheimer's patient would be accepted as a figurehead for the highest office in the land. Oh, and to exchange students attending college on grants to students being forced to get themselves into debt if they wished an education -- this one picks everybody's pockets who was born after 1960 and seeks higher education. Pre-Bush, the only administration more corrupt than Reagan's was U.S. Grant's itself.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

105. That's Blashphemous....

LBJ gave us the

-the Voting Rights Act

-the Civil Rights Act

-the Fair Housing Act

-Medicaid


-Medicare


What did Bush give us besides tax cuts for the rich and wars that kill the poor?

[bemildred]

114. Politicians in a democracy do not "give" things.

They are "servants of the people" right?
And "the people" are sovereign,right?
So why do I owe a politician that merely does his job (for once) anything?

But my observation of politicians in the USA is that their main
role is to withold things from the people, like a public health
care system, accurate and honest voting systems, tax fairness, and
so on. There are occasional exceptions of course, especially when
they need to head off grass roots political movements.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

116. If Not For Johnson Many Of Those Programs Would Have Been Delayed If Not

Denied

[bemildred]

117. What's this? Faith based history?

Congress passes the laws. Johnson just went along because he
had no choice, and he wanted to get his war in SE Asia going.

If I give credit to anybody, any single person, for the reforms
of the 60s, it's MLK Jr.; and the anti-war movement. Johnsom
was just another political hack.

"Master of the Senate", ha! Hagiographies are all very well, but
they are not History.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

118. Maybe You Should Read More And Opine Less...

I didn't know congress was the architect of the Great Society....


If it wasn't for LBJ's leadership much of the civil rights legislation and certainly Medicare and Medicaid wouldn't have passed...

It seems history is on my side since the nation went some one hundred eighty or so years without any medical health entitlements and Jim Crow lived for one hundred years before it was elinated by the Civil Right Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Fair Housing Act...

To say these would have miraculously been enacted into law is to believe in the Tooth Fairy...

[bemildred]

119. I assure you I read a great deal.

But I expect it's not the same books that you read.

The reforms in the sixties were passed because there were
violent riots in the streets of many major cities demanding
those changes, civil insurrection, and that sort of thing
looks tacky in a nation that claims to be democratic, and
because there was a massive grass-roots political movement
to force the change. If you think LBJ did any more than he
was forced to do, you are way more ignorant of history than I.

Try "Rivers of Blood, Years of Darkness" by Robert Conot
Then: "The Politics of War" by Walter Karp.
Or Karp's "Inseparable Enemies" if you prefer.

But this is tiresome. You spout only blather and names.
Have a nice day.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

120. Seems We Are Hoisted On Our Own Petard

I posted that LBJ was was responsible for much of the civil rights legislation and expanded entitlements and what was your retort...

bemildred (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-08-04 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #116

117. What's this? Faith based history


Let me end this little colloquy with a quote from you:

"But this is tiresome. You spout only blather and names.
Have a nice day."


Kisses

Brian

[Maddy McCall]

62. Hardly. I am discussing domestic policy.

You want to change the discussion to foreign policy. My argument is sound.

By the way, I'm a "she."

[bemildred]

109. My apologies for the gender mistake.

Should have seen the "Maddy" for what it was.

My point is perfectly clear, whether you choose to see it or not.

I suppose one can argue that his war policy was "liberal", but
I consider it the same old tyrannical use of foreign threats to
thwart political change at home. That he made social concessions
in order to pursue his war policy is little different from what FDR
did with the GI bill and his other social reforms, or the reforms
the British ruling class made during WWII and promptly took away
as soon as the war was won.

[T Town Jake]

76. That's sheer, unadulterated...

...horseshit. Geez-louise...have you ever cracked the spine of even a seventh-grade history text?

[bemildred]

112. I read a good deal actually.

Perhaps if you presented a counter-argument, I could consider it.

[BurtWorm]

85. You mean "her argument."

;)

[bemildred]

113. Yes, please see post #109.

[Maddy McCall]

13. As an historian, I am trained to look at focal areas of policy.

I am focusing on LBJ's domestic policy, since liberalism is most often expressed in domestic policy.

[janx]

20. Literary critics tend to "focus" in the same ways as well.

It's bias.

Admit it.

[Maddy McCall]

32. Nope.

It's not bias. I have spent the past four months reading presidential biographies by a gamut of historians.

It has little to do with bias, although I agree that no one is absent of it.

Why would I be biased toward LBJ? After reading Dallek's two bios on him, and contrasting them to other bios on him, I find Dallek's the most convincing.

Also, I read numerous bios on FDR, and political inquiries on the New Deal.

This is how I came to the conclusion. I have no personal reasons for selecting LBJ as the most liberal...just that everything I have read points to that.

[janx]

37. Yep.

Feel free to publish.

[Leilani]

45. Have you read Robert Caro's volumes on LBJ?

[Maddy McCall]

52. Yes, I have.

Dallek's is better researched, and utilizes resources to which Caro was not privy.

[BurtWorm]

86. Who was the most radical president, in your opinion?

:hi:

PS: I'm going to ask this is a thread of its own.

[T Town Jake]

75. Because JFK escalated it...

...Johnson was only trying to fulfill the Cold Warrior legacy of his beloved predecessor when he committed the United States to Vietnam in the manner he did.

Read some history every once in a while before you post, why don't you?

[lastliberalintexas]

98. Ah, but you can't point out

the flaws in JFK's character or presidency around here. I guess you didn't get that memo... We're only allowed to slam Johnson, you know.

[Maddy McCall]

100. You said a mouthful!

From a fellow Texas native. :-)

[lastliberalintexas]

106. Hi Maddy

I also should have said that I agree with you about LBJ domestically. Medicaid, Medicare, AFDC, SSI (I think), the War on Poverty and the Great Society, the Civil Rights Acts (which JFK wouldn't touch)- Johnson could have been in the top 2 or 3 of all time. But for Vietnam. What is that Whittier quote? Of all the sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these- It might have been.

And I do agree with much of what you said about Vietnam too. I think the MIC/CIA/FBI had much more control than we give them credit for in those days, and I think he was fairly hamstrung by the alphabet soup boys.

But I don't even blame JFK for Vietnam- we already had soldiers there when Ike left office. Though I still blame the Red Scare McCarthyites of the day more than even Ike. So much evil of that time can be traced back to the McCarthy and Cohn bunch. Sad.


:hi: Hope all is well!

[JohnKleeb]

8. agreed

Leave Vietnam out, and IMO he's right up there with Roosevelt. Ive learned a lot about the stuff he tried to do in my research paper I have on Applachia, Reagan gutted a lotta those programs sad to say. I really do like and admire LBJ for what he did.

[Leilani]

48. John Kleeb, you see the best in everyone

& that's very admirable.

But you're very young, aren't you?

It's an intellectual exercise to read about people in history books, however when you have lived through a President's administration, & watched your country being torn apart, & you see people you love dearly going off to a rotten war, that can't be won, & only SOME people are going off to that war, because others have connections, or lucky numbers, & then you find out it was all a big lie anyway, because they knew they couldn't win, but they wouldn't admit it for political reasons....the rest of it means shit.

And there goes the innocence.

[JohnKleeb]

53. I feel the war was his big mistake but I wont overlook his good qualities

too. I had an uncle sent off to that war btw, I know what its like, my dad had friends killed in the war. I feel domestically speaking that LBJ was the most liberal, Ive read what he did for the poor, it was admirable. I understand where everyone is coming from but I find LBJ while flawed not bad like Bush.

[Maddy McCall]

59. Never let anyone discourage you from your intellectual pursuits

There is nothing wrong with coming to a conclusion after reading many interpretations about an historical figure.

You are an intelligent young man with wisdom beyond your years. Never let anyone tell you that there is anything wrong with that.

[JohnKleeb]

63. thank you

BTW most of what I read about LBJ comes not from history books but comes from reading articles and books. I don't think he was a saint but I think he was a good guy with good intentions for the country. So much he did is important to our way of life today.

[UpsideDownFlag]

10. after reading "Deriliction of Duty"...I can't bring myself to like him.

nt

[janx]

28. I can't either.

I will never like him.

[JI7]

16. even including Vietnam

you have to consider the times and put it in context. and of course unlike Bush , Johnson had a conscience and was hurt by what was going on with the war and decided not to run again. remember, his own son in law was serving in the war also.

bush on the other hand does not care at all by what is going on. johnson was pained by it, and i'm sure it contributed to his early death shortly after he left office. he could admit he was wrong.

bush doesn't because he doesn't care.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

17. I agree wholeheartedly with you Maddy.

LBJ was one the greatest 20th Century Presidents domestically. He passed the Civil Rights Act, Medicare, Head Start and I really do believe that he was a good person for all his faults.

Also when he was a Congressman or Senator from Texas, I don't remember, wasn't he instrumental in bring rural electrification to Texas?

At least no one could say that "Landslide Lyndon" was "all hat, no cowboy".

[Maddy McCall]

29. Yes.

Great post!

[kodi]

24. on race and poverty, no doubt

lbj grew up poor, and understood the powerful positive affect government could have on the lives of poor people. he understood the value and spirit of the new deal better than fdr, beause he lived it

the tragedy of lbj is worse than nixon's, because with so much good johnson did he did so much damage as well. and the paradox of such good works and bad flowing from the same man is the saddest in american history.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

34. Remember that picture of LBJ that was printed shortly before his

death. The man looked haunted.

I agree LBJ was and always will be a tragic figure in American history.

[kodi]

55. this is the photo that haunts

supposedly it was taken right after johnson had listened to a tape recording from his son-in-law chuck robb, an officer on active duty in viet nam (or another soldier's tape, i forgot).

[InvisibleBallots]

31. LBJ - One of the Greatest

Has anyone listened to his tapes about Vietnam? He never had a choice, and he knew it, and said as much.

LBJ - one of the greats, taken down by circumstance beyone his control - thanks the FAKE Democrat JFK, who got us into the Vietnam mess.

[Maddy McCall]

35. Finally, someone who agrees with me about JFK!

Ich bin ein Berliner = I am a donut.

;-)

[Zomby Woof]

58. and me as well

I still think I am the first DUer to openly come out against JFK.

[fujiyama]

69. Sorry

I will defend Johnson on Civil Rights (and there is no indication he was as bad as Nixon or Reagan), but Vietnam was mostly his fault.

Kennedy was ready to pull the advisors out. Johnson himself told McNamara afterwards that he disagreed with that policy. Granted, McNamara isn't exactly the most trustworthy person around, but whether Johnson felt bad about the mess he made, means little.

The fact is he got the country in one hell of a mess.

[InvisibleBallots]

95. that's the story, yes

I haven't seen any evidence that JFK was going to pull us out, and even if that's true - JFK was a warmonger extrodinare.

As to Johnson, listen to the tapes.

[janx]

33. Who among us are old enough to remember those who died

in Viet Nam?!

[Maddy McCall]

36. *raising my hand*

I remember the Viet Nam era very well.

[janx]

41. Then I cannot understand how you could support LBJ

in any way.

It was hideous and disgusting, and we had no business goint after the "commies," just as we have no business going after muslims and attempting to change governments around the world.

LBJ supporters were Red Scare people, in the same way anti-muslim sentiment is shaping up today.

Cornpone was crap and always will be.

[JI7]

42. because LBJ helped save a lot of lives

and helped make the lives of americans who were suffering in horrible ways in this country for years better.

[JohnKleeb]

44. that is true

I am doing a research paper on the poverty in Applachia and before LBJ was in office, no one ever thought about helping those people in the white house.

[Leilani]

54. "LBJ helped save a lot of lives"

The war ended with 58,000 Americans dead, & 2 million Vietnamese dead.

[Maddy McCall]

60. Are you capable of talking about domestic policy?

That is the topic of this thread. I agree that the war was tragic.

LBJ inherited not only Vietnam, but also containment policy. Vietnam was a concern of every president after WWII. JFK had already begun direct American involvement by sending "advisors" to VietNam. Do you think it would have been any different if JFK had been president?

I don't.

[Leilani]

65. Yes, I'm capable of talking about domestic policy

but in your opening post, you say to separate Vietnam out of the equation, but it can never be separated.

Also, if you see one of my earlier posts, I consider LBJ as corrupt & evil as Bush.

As a matter of fact, I think he was a more deserving candidate for impeachment than Richard Nixon, however the Dems were in control back then.

LBJ's policies created a rift in our country that we still have not recovered from. Young against old, black against white, pro-war vs anti-war, liberal vs conservative, big government vs small government, are all still haunting us today.

And perhaps the worst, very worst result of his Presidency is a mistrust of gov't which remains to this day, & is still playing itself out: witness the recent election.

So when you talk domestic policies, you're really talking about legislation passed. I'm talking domestic policy, as to how his presidency affected our country, & that's domestic policy.

[fujiyama]

70. Conveniently

I see you leave out Nixon's southern strategy and his own race baiting. I'd say most of those divisions - including the loss of trust in government can be more attributed toward Nixon.

What I won't get is why some liberals like to look at Nixon as a liberal. Sure, he passed a few decent bills, but most of them were probably veto proof anyways. I'm amazed how easilly Nixon's crimes are excused by many now.

LBJ may have been the one to get the country into Vietnam (and I'm definetely not excusing that), but Nixon kept us there for years longer and escalated it.

[Leilani]

77. Were you alive during the LBJ admin & Vietnam War

or did you read about it?

I lived through it...to me, it's personal.

40 years from now, lots of people won't think Bush was too bad.

[Maddy McCall]

80. No. JFK got us "into" vietnam

[nomatrix]

142. Historian? Remember Vietnam well?

History 101

Cold War

1961 - JFK was takes office as President, LBJ Vice President, same team, same policy.

1961 - LBJ visits Vietnam reccommends sending more support.

(Involvement there is based on President Eisenhower 1956 policy toward SE Asia.)

As President, Johnson continued the civil rights policies started by the previous administration, of which he was a part.


You can't seperate Kennedy/Johnson on policies started in their administration, anymore than you can seperate Johnson from Vietnam.

[Maddy McCall]

79. You don't understand the definition of "domestic policy"

[Leilani]

81. Domestic Policy is more than passing Legislation

Ever heard of "Domestic Tranquility?"

[Maddy McCall]

82. Tell African Americans who now have the right to vote as well...

as the right to go anywhere in public that they choose that LBJ didn't further "domestic tranquility" for them.

Tell the millions of elderly people who take part in Medicare that their health doesn't contribute to "domestic tranquility."

I didn't say that Johnson didn't have flaws...I still assert that his domestic policies were far ahead of its time, making him the most liberal president in US history.

Just wondering, though, whom do you consider to be the most liberal president in US history? Whose domestic policies do you consider more liberal than LBJ's? FDR, who had a real chance to restructure capitalism, but who implemented consumerism?

Just wondering.

[ArtVandaley]

138. Yes, I do

http://www.hnn.us/articles/3446.html

Read this article.

[Maddy McCall]

51. Not exactly true.

When LBJ died, 60% of the people who attended his funeral and wake were African Americans.

[JI7]

38. well, i was born after the war

but a lot of people died unjustly based on right wing domestic policies for years . black people were terrorized in their own country.

it's kind of like how things like 9/11 are big news but that doesn't mean the people who are dying of hunger,lack of health care, poverty etc around the world is any less of a tragedy and involves a lot of bad intention.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

43. I am.

My eldest brother served in Viet Nam from October 1967 through November 1968. While he came back in one piece, five of his friends did not and three of my friends in high school lost their brothers in that god-forsaken war.

I can't and won't forget that time in my life or what my parents and my sister and my other brother went through that god awful year of 1967-1968.

It just makes me sick at heart to think that families in this country have to re-live at the present time what I and many of my friends went through.

[bemildred]

47. I remember. nt

[kodi]

56. i was 14 when my uncle died there. i remember the day quite well

.

[Leilani]

49. Lyndon Baines Johnson can never be separated from Vietnam.

It's like Shrub being separated from Iraq...never happen.

[sangh0]

124. LBJ didn't start the VN War

.

[Doomsayer13]

50. His programs were a liberal dream

War on poverty? Civil Rights? Medicare? My god man, we could only dream of such activism today!

Vietnam sadly overshadows what would otherwise be a brilliant legacy.

[Maddy McCall]

61. Wouldn't it be great if such were possible today.

[Justitia]

83. I agree - what a mixed legacy - greatness of leadership, absolute failure

in leadership.

I HATE that they both exist in the same man.
Very sad.
Seems like we have lots of complex presidents that way, guess that is what makes them giants among men (excusing the obvious few, ahem).

[LTRS]

64. Most surprisingly liberal president

He spent years building political capital and used it well at the right moments in time. He was courageous and he did what he knew was right. Never a wussie. Yeah, he screwed up on Vietnam, but I think he did the best he could do there.

JFK - the most overrated president and not the liberal that he is mythologically portrayed as.

FDR is still my favorite though. :)

[Turd Ferguson]

68. Let me start by saying...

that I am only 18 and my knowledge of LBJ probably pales in comparison to a lot of the previous posters. But I have studied him a great deal this semester and I find him a particularly interesting and almost tragic character.

To talk about the Great Society and civil rights, one has to immediately disassociate it with LBJ because the negative feelings for LBJ about Vietnam and just his personal nastiness tend to overshadow a lot of the good he did. IMO, LBJ did as much to help those less fortunate than any other president in history.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. JFK is NOT more overrated than Raygun

Not to mention that the man got less than one term to enact an agenda.

[Turd Ferguson]

72. Agreed

The man diffused one of the most explosive situation with reason and understanding. Can you imagine if GWB was president during the Cuban Missile Crisis?

[Justitia]

84. Peace corps? Space Program? Housing Act? Area Dev Act? Cuban Missle

Crisis? And for bravery: PT109?

Yes, JFK had his signficant faults as all the greats do, but let's not minimize some really great things he accomplished in such a short time....

[T Town Jake]

73. I agree completely...

...he passed the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1965. He created the Great Society, and tried to fight the War on Poverty. He succeeded in making many of those ambitious goals a reality - and improved the lives of many millions of poor & hungry Americans as a result.
Also, truth-in-advertising and Highway beautification started under LBJ, as well as many environmental reforms. I completely agree: remove Vietnam from the equation, and Lyndon Baines Johnson was the most liberal president in American history.
Thanks for posting this thread: it tells the absolute truth.

:thumbsup:

[DerekG]

89. LBJ--the human paradox

His vision for America was as beneficient as any leader's in the modern world; he was also a war criminal who presided over genocide and ecocide. I don't know: Can one be a saint and a sadist?

I agree, Johnson was--without a doubt--our most liberal president. This should give us pause, for much of the horror we've exported has been wrought by progressive presidents: T. Roosevelt, W. Wilson, and H. Truman. They have a penchant for masking their sins through laudable domestic programs.

[leansleft]

94. Domesticly Johnson was a great president

[slowroll]

97. I dunno about the framing of this question

It's really difficult to attempt to quantify how "liberal" a president was using today's standards of liberalism. "Liberal" and "Progressive" are labels that require an opposite state of being to mean anything, an unacceptably antiquated/regressive situation that needs to be progressed away from. Saying Lincoln wasn't liberal because he didn't object to send blacks to Africa strikes me as a little odd, considering that the "conservative" position of the day was that blacks should be held as property and could be beaten, sold and killed at the will of their masters. Lincoln engaged in a war which killed 600k Americans in order to get away from that status quo.

But I'd have to say that FDR was the most liberal president we've had. As many arguments as you'd like to make that the New Deal legislation was somehow simply a sop to business, FDR broke laissez faire capitalism in the US forever. It was a process started with the Sherman ATR and furthered by Teddy, but FDR's term meant no looking back. I would say that was the biggest progressive departure from the status quo ante we've had thus far in American history.

LBJ is certainly second, but the scope of his liberalism doesn't touch that of FDR's. And it's difficult to entirely ignore Vietnam, however inevitable involvement in that war might have been for him, if for no other reason than its eventual encroachment onto his domestic budget.

[marc_the_dem]

99. I agree because of his work on civil rights

I believe he did more for advancing civil rights than any president since Lincoln.

[FeelinGarfunkelly]

128. JFK put housing, voting, and CRA'64 into congress..

but it took LBJ to ram it through.

[amazona]

101. tough call between him and FDR

But certainly he deserves more credit than he got even if I feel we must ultimately give the nod to FDR.

Someone posted, maybe yesterday, on "looksism" and how we judge LBJ compared to JFK. Many forget LBJ's activities for civil rights and against poverty.

[WI_DEM]

104. I do think LBJ is the more progressive

But let me say that the New Deal was revolutionary and FDR couldn't do everything in that day and age that LBJ could do 30 years later. Without FDR's New Deal there would be no LBJ Great Society. That said I think that from all the reading I've done that LBJ had a great sympathy for the poor and disadvantaged. His memorable "I've Got A Dream" speech of March, 1965 is in my opinion one of the great presidential addresses of all time.

"...I never thought then, in 1928, that I would be standing here in 1965. It neer even ocurred to me in my fondest dreams taht I might have the chance to help the sons and daughters of those students and to help people like them all over this country. But now I do have that chance--and I'll let you in on a secret--I mean to use it."

http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/650315.asp

[itcfish1]

108. I Agree

He was an SOB but a great liberal

[Blue_Tires]

110. and was the killing of JFK

part of his domestic policy, i wonder?

[WI_DEM]

111. LBJ didn't have a part in the killing of JFK

he thought it was the Cubans. It could have been the mob since the mob thought that JFK was a turncoat when he put Bobby in charge of busting organized crime after they donated money and helped steal votes to elect JFK.

[Blue_Tires]

115. may have been

but there had to have been some inside (gov't) help for the cover-up to succeed so well

[Bush was AWOL]

126. Prove that he had a part in that killing?

That's right, you can't.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

121. FDR Built The Welfare State....LBJ Expanded It....

And as much as I respect FDR he was not a cardboard saint either... He interred loyal American citizens of Japanese ancestry during WW2 and turned away Jews who were trying to escape the Holocaust...

[JohnKleeb]

135. right

I love FDR but he was not without his flaws, not saying Johnson wasn't, in fact I do admit Johnson was flawed big time but as far as domestics go, the man was something I wish we had.

[sangh0]

125. LBJ had the help of the Oil Industry

a problem that's even worse today. That doesn't mean he wasn't a liberal, but it still ticks me off.

[ArtVandaley]

136. Debate Abe Lincoln's presidency but ignore the Civil War

Sorry, Vietnam broke his presidency, so omitting that would make no sense.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

140. The Question Was Whether Or Not He Was The Most Liberal Democratic

President On Domestic Issues Not Whether He Was The Best....


IMHO, those honors belong to Washington, Lincoln , FDR, and TR...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

141. If you forget about Auscwitz you could say that Hitler was an ok guy.

Leaving Vietnam out is like leaving slavery out of the civil war.