For some reason, the best route for getting elected is still to run against government, making one wonder if a scientist, say, would ever think of applying for a research job by pointing out how much he or she hates science. This curious distrust of politics, running high in the Obama mania, also leads to a lot of historical injustice. Take the case of Lyndon Johnson, the forgotten president.
As you doubtless failed to notice, this year is the 100th anniversary of LBJ's birth, which was August 8, 1908 in the tiny town of Stonewall, Texas. His special assistant for domestic affairs, Joseph A. Califano Jr., recently gave a fine speech trying to rescue his boss from the deep cloud of historical amnesia that has set in. Making LBJ invisible, as for instance John Edwards did in making poverty his theme but never mentioning Johnson, who did more to reduce poverty than probably any American president, breaks the chain of a progressive tradition and fosters the fiction that people who really know how to make government do things are somehow beneath mention.
So Califano tries to set the record straight, and it's worth considering Lyndon the Invisible. He got more than 100 major bills past Congress, including establishing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, endowments for the arts and humanities, and environmental and consumer protection measures. Most notably, he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, acts of extraordinary political courage that exacted a severe price on his party for years. (The reaction was swift, with Democrats losing 47 seats in the House in 1966.)
But the real achievement was the forever-maligned War on Poverty, which has become a political punching bag for decades. Califano writes:
When Johnson took office, 22.2 percent of Americans lived in poverty. When he left, only 13 percent were living below the poverty line -- the greatest one-time poverty reduction in U.S. history. Johnson proposed and convinced Congress to enact Medicare, which today covers 43 million older Americans; Medicaid, which covers 63 million needy individuals; the loan, grant and work-study programs that more than 60 percent of college students use; aid to elementary and secondary education in poor areas; Head Start; food stamps, which help feed 27 million men, women and children; increases in the minimum Social Security benefit, which keep 10 million seniors out of poverty; and an array of programs designed to empower the poor at the grass roots. No president since Johnson has been able to effect any significant reduction in poverty. In 2006, the poverty level stood at 12.3 percent; today is it almost certainly higher.
Johnson did all this, Obama might note, by courting Republicans. He knew that only with bipartisan support would the politicians have the courage to take such tough votes, and that this was the only way to protect the legislation for years to come. The legislation lasted a long time and it vastly overshadows what most modern presidents have been able to accomplish. But history is a cruel judge. Johnson sank from history because of the Vietnam War.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!

Print
Email





Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Thu, Jun 5, 6:37 p.m. Inappropriate
interesting read: Thanks for making me a little less ignorant on the subject of Johnson's presidency. Perhaps one of the reasons he is so obscure was his escalation of the Vietnam war, which effectively canceled out his other numerous and impressive accomplishments.
In Johnson's time, it seems like Americans viewed government as a tool for solving problems. Today, the ever growing right wing is convinced that government is the problem, while the Bush administration has by its example led just about everyone else to the same conclusion.
It will be quite a challenge for Obama, should he win in November, to sell the idea that government programs have a constructive role to play in our affairs.
Posted Thu, Jun 5, 11:58 p.m. Inappropriate
Second Greatest President of 20th Century: David Brewster's comments are right on point, LBJ knew how to craft and implement legislation that would have a lasting effect on all the people in the US.
Growing up in the 1970's and 80's I can not imagine a US where blacks did not have the unconditional right to vote in all 50 states, when LBJ took office most black people could not vote in as many as 18 states, unless they could pass variable and arbitrary tests and pay "poll taxes".
His great society legacy is maligned in the popular lexicon as social programs to pay for the Viet Nam war, which on both points are false. His efforts to reduce poverty in fact did work to reduce poverty, and continued until Caspar Weinberger as Nixon's director of OMB unilaterally defunded (illegally in almost every case) some of the core programs which was never challenged by congress or the public.
LBJ gets a bad rap unjustly from our involvement in Viet Nam, and justly from his personal predilictions for abusing the power that he sought and concentrated in the Presidency. He is a figure in American history that is so complex almost any description is more than likely true, even if they are contradictory.
Posted Fri, Jun 6, 10:49 a.m. Inappropriate
Reducing Poverty: "..who did more to reduce poverty than probably any American president..."
I agree that Lyndon Johnson deserves greater respect than he is commonly given these days but I don't think the statistics mentioned (by Califano) really support that claim.
Poverty reduction very closely parallels growth in our Gross Domestic Product; economic growth was relatively modest in USA from the mid-sixties to the mid-eighties.
Daniel Moynihan wrote convincingly about the Great Society programs (I think the title of the one I am remembering was "Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding"). Mr. Moynihan was a good deal less enthusiastic about the war on poverty than Mr. Brewster. I don't have the statistics on hand but my guess would be that poverty dropped more as a percentage of the population each year during the Reagan/Bush/Clinton decades.
Posted Sat, Jun 7, 2:46 p.m. Inappropriate
Obama might note, but times have changed: There is no doubt Johnson did a great deal for the country- but he did it by being the consummate old time machine politician- he was the horse trader, arm twister, and head trip master of all time. He was constantly making deals, calling in favors, and threatening to expose skeletons in closets.
He was not a nice man, but he got things done.
But the kind of politics he was supreme at, the behind closed doors, "we know whats good for you" stuff, is exactly what Obama is running against.
Obama's first act as the nominee was to refuse lobbyist and PAC donations.
Johnson, on the other hand, pretty much singlehandedly built Brown and Root, which, of course, became Halliburton, into the mega-corp it is today, by accepting huge donations, mostly illegal even then, from them in exchange for sweetheart government contracts worth millions and millions.
He never saw a donation he didnt like, or a kickback, or a special deal for a friend.
Robert Caro argues, I think pretty successfully, that Johnson was indeed trying to do the right thing- alleviate poverty, mainly, but that he did indeed care about the country. But there was NOTHING Johnson wouldnt do to get to his ends- and that included a lot of stuff that was blatantly illegal, sleazy, and morally reprehensible.
Making deals with republicans was only the tip of the iceberg- read the Caro biographies, which are fascinating, and you will see how different Obama is, in virtually every way, from Johnson.
Obama, hopefully, will indeed work with the republicans- but I cannot imagine him taking Johnson's techniques as a model.