LBJ is an embarrassment, a complicated one. His break through Great Society policies should be his monument but they were sufficiently offset by his ward heeler tactics and identification with Vietnam so we just don't want to go there.

Sorry, Ike had people in Viet Nam before JFK did.

I've made comments in here previously that tend to defend some of our less "popular" Presidents. LBJ and Nixon are two that immediately come to mind: Both were highly paradoxical, complex characters - not an easy fit at all for the simplistic sloganeers who make-up the bulk of the modern "Cartoon Culture" (my description, of many years usage). A certain tragic (but ultimately very human) flaw (in almost a Shakespearean sense)prevents these types (perhaps) from achieving the very top rung, but it makes them intensely compelling and just plain INTERESTING, in contrast to the blow-dried, over-virtued, one-trick little "cartoons" we seem to spend so much time with these days.

They just don't quite FIT the pigeon-hole we've assigned for them, for ONE bothersome reason: In spite of their worst failures, they produce an actual body of constructive, living WORK. They have "hay in the barn", to sort of folksy this up a little. I won't waste time here, but anyone can find the lengthy list of their substantive achievements in a 30-second search - just read on a little past "Vietnam" and "Watergate" (or "Monica"). They make(a deliberate word-choice)real, living history that surrounds us today.

I confess to a weakness for these types (put Clinton in there, too): Titanic, flawed geniuses, masters of the crafts of their trade, who bust-up a lot of furniture in the process (some accidental, some on purpose), but eventually outlast their prim little critics (Who remembers THOSE people now, by the way?) to get a lot of important business DONE, for better or for worse.

Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

Thus passes the glory of the world

(or, Gloria threw up on the subway last Monday)

Hey, hey, LBJ
How many brains have you warped today?

Oh, don't forget the flowers Lady Bird planted. Our Interstates are nicer thanks to her.

I would like to broaden the conversation a tad and then bring it back to Johnson.

Viet Nam must be looked at through a larger context. We all know that it was a French colony. I also believe that we all understand the history of colonialism and client states that stems all the way back to the Egyptian empire. The primary reason that the United States opted to take over stewardship of the Indochinese colony was because of resources. The history of the United States is one of resource hegemony. The reason being one of trade power AND pacification of the vox populi. On one level, control of resources and trade routes establishes diplomatic strength. Secondly, the citizenry get to purchase goods cheaply and maintain a comfortable lifestyle. This pacifies discontent.

Wars and occupations are not usually waged for broader humanitarian concerns. Wars by their very nature are anti-humanitarian. In the case of Viet Nam, there was fear that the nation would become a trade client of the USSR. All of that valuable rubber, teak, aluminum, copper, and agriculture would become the trading property of a rival nation instead of a NATO ally. US strength would wane while soviet strength would wax.

Johnson, Kennedy, and Nixon were all prisoners of this mindset. This is also the tacit mindset of the American people. As long as we the people can continue to afford our lifestyles and amusements, we will largely remain content.

I write this because most of us, even liberals, are guilty of furthering American imperialism. The freedom we enjoy is built on a foundation of unfair trade policies backed by US military might. Therefore, it is no wonder that Johnson deepened our involvement in Viet Nam. The cost of American lives was worth a cheap set of Goodyear tires to the average voter. The same thinking persists in all of us today. Just lack at the manufacturing stamp on the back of your monitor.

Clearthinker's post is thought-provoking

And completely correct in my own opinion.

There's lots of folks who are in LBJ's debt. He did more for alot more for the people than did JFK.

And yes, he was the last New Dealer. A political philosophy so dominant so prima facie right that no republican occupied the White House for 20 years.

But memories are short, CT, and the people forget the lessons of the past, and the great sad, flawed giant, Lyndon Baines Johnson, benefactor of the people in so many ways goes into the pale shades of the past.

Except for percipient souls like yourself.

Here's to LBJ, God bless him and all the good work he did for people despite his mistakes.

Another very emotional part of the LBJ legacy is that he literally served out JFK's term. You can't talk about LBJ's achievements and not palpably feel that they are what America got instead of Kennedy's. Since this is both speculative and emotional, it is pretty difficult to counter with simple facts.

There is no amount of logic that can erase the fact the LBJ conjures up memories of JFK's assassination. Especially in this election, that probably isn't a desired effect. That could be why the dems aren't talking about him.

One other thought: LBJ was ... boring. At this point, the MSM is trying to build excitement(to the point of embarrassing themselves). Seriously, what are the chances they'd provide genuine historical context to anything simply for the sake of informing the public?

'commended for seriouos discussion of LBJ and the Great Society.

Wow, excellent thread! THIS is the kind of discussion I was hoping to have here at TPM!

Cheers to all...

clearthinker,

I just found this: "Obama’s address came a day after the 100th birthday of former President Lyndon B. Johnson, who signed two major civil-rights laws in the mid-1960s that also helped pave the way for Obama’s ascendance. LBJ was remembered at the convention Thursday in a video tribute."

I didn't actually see this video but at least LBJ's accompishments were not unnoticed by the DNC.