LBJ WAS SO MUCH BETTER THAN OBAMA

[Alcibiades]

We've all seen the posts: LBJ had accomplished much more than Obama by this point in his presidency, most notably the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Medicare. This view is profoundly ahistorical, intellectually sloppy, and politically counterproductive. LBJ assumed office under rather unique circumstances. One of the reasons for his success was the fact that he assumed office during what ought to have been the Kennedy administration. LBJ was able to get the Civil Rights Act of 1963 passed because it had, in fact, been introduced in Congress in 1963. Moreover, it was recognized that this was something the late President wanted, and LBJ enjoyed a big bounce from a nation shocked at what happened to JFK: in fact, LBJ had approval ratings ten points higher than Kennedy's own ratings at the time of his assassination. When Kennedy was assassinated, it became much harder for opponents to oppose, simply because public opinion rallied around LBJ after the assassination.



There's also another key explanatory variable Obama's critics overlook: when Medicare was introduced in March 1965, it was under the 89th Congress. One hypothesis, the one accepted as fact by Obama's critics, is that LBJ was able to manage Congress and Obama is not. My alternative hypothesis is that legislative success may have something to do with the partisan composition of Congress.

So, you ask, what was the partisan makeup of the 89th Congress?

Democrats: 68
Republicans: 32

House of Representatives

Democratic: 295
Republican: 140

So, was Johnson some sort of Magic Texan, and is our current President really so unimpressive, or maybe what's really impressive is the fact that LBJ HAD 10 MORE DEMOCRATIC VOTES IN THE SENATE AND 39 MORE DEMOCRATIC VOTES IN THE HOUSE? Obama is much more constrained than LBJ, in part because he has less votes, and in part because the Republican Party today is much more ideologically cohesive than it was back in the 1960's. Back then, it's true that the bar in the Senate was higher, in that 67 votes were required to override a filibuster, but LBJ had the support of pro-civil rights Republicans in the Senate minority leadership, such as Everett Dirksen and Thomas Kuchel. The Senate version passed with 27 Republican votes in the Senate, and 136 Republican votes in the House.

So, in my opinion as a mediocre political scientist, much of the variation in observed legislative success between these two administrations is accounted for by differences in presidential approval, differences in party representation in Congress, and an increase in party cohesion and party-line voting. That's something like a falsifiable proposition, much better than the hypothesis that "Obama sucks," so often offered up by his critics.

I could offer the President's critics a laundry list list of citations from peer-reviewed political science journals that support my reasoning here, but I doubt they would be persuaded, so I won't bother at this time. The never-ending ankle-biting of the first non-southern Democrat elected in my lifetime is proof, once again, of the truth underlying Will Rogers' assertion that "I'm not a member of any organized party. I'm a Democrat."

OK, you can get back to hating now.

[phleshdef]

1. There were Republicans willing to vote with LBJ too. Can't forget that.

[msongs]

2. lol everyone who is different than you is a hater lol nt

[yurbud]

4. that's the talking point. You'd think they'd be embarrassed about using Bush defenses

Next they'll be calling us traitors and terrorists.

[Alcibiades]

7. ASnd I think the President's critics would be more embarassed

by their thoughtlessness. I don't retreat into my own alternative reality when confronted with something that doesn't sound like something I already believe: that's the real hallmark of the Bush-Rove era.

What I posted was a little theory that comports well with what political scientists know about the ability of presidents to push their legislative agenda through Congress. If you're not simply a hater, show yourself to be a thoughtful person by you addressing the substance, with supporting evidence of your own.

[yurbud]

25. actually, I found 95% of your post thoughtful and informative. It was the ''hater'' dig at the end

that was a regurgitated talking point.

You had actually been persuasive until you stuck the knife in at the end.

[Alcibiades]

26. This is because I despair of persuasion at this point

I've posted a number of threads wherein I've put forth something I had thought was well argued, only to have them die, or get folks unreccing them without comment, or comments such as "you suck. n/t". It's disconcerting. Reminds me of nothing so much as the acrimony surrounding the primary, which is to the point: we ought to pressure the administration to pursue policies we all like better, but we should also not waste so much time and effort shouting at each other that we forget the damage the Republicans have done to our country, and the damage they will do again if we do not remain vigilant against them.

[Alcibiades]

6. No, but people who, when confronted with a substantive

argument, can only respond with "lol hate nt" are haters.

Nor do you read particularly well, if you think that the main point of what I wrote was to label the President's opponents haters. The fact that you don't even bother to attempt to refute the truths I note, but can only whine when I point out the behavior of many haters who are hating, is telling.

[enid602]

3. LBJ

LBJ was the last of the New Dealers; before becoming President he had a lifetime of negotiating, struggling and making coalitions in Congress. Probably the greatest Rooseveltian politician after FDR himself.

[Alcibiades]

10. He was

And the first year of the Johnson administration was really the fourth year of the Kennedy administration. LBJ was able to hit the ground running because everyone was already in place. I have a great respect for Johnson and what he was able to accomplish: until the current President, he was the best Democratic President we have seen in my lifetime. Whether Obama can supersede him will depend largely on how he takes advantage of current historical contingencies. What some folks don't seem to appreciate is that the need to make an honest, apples to apples comparison.

People also forget that Johnson was never more popular than he was the day he assumed office. This is an example of having political capital and spending it, and regressing toward the mean, but it is also why Johnson decided not to run in 1968. I hope the President is in a better position in 2012 than Johnson was in 1968.

[enid602]

21. lobbyists

I wonder how Johnson would have dealt with the lobbyists today. That´s what seems to be hindering Obama, and would make you wonder if ANYONE could be effective in the current environment.

[Alcibiades]

27. There's also the media

He didn't have Fox News to contend with. Grassroots Republicans today are no more crazy or right-wing than they were in the 1960's, but they have a much bigger and well-funded propaganda operation operating 24-7.

[enid602]

45. media

But the media killed LBJ on Viet Nam, with good reason, in my opinion.

[ima_sinnic]

5. "hating"?

whatever you said, screw you

[Alcibiades]

8. That was at the very end

How is it that so few are able to actually address what I actually wrote?

Don't be shy, no punctuation or capitalization person. Tell me how it reall is in your world.

[kiva]

17. Because, like many thread here,

you were doing well until the last sentence. If you want people to respond to the overall content of your post, leave off the snark. If you want to get into a poo-flinging match, it doesn't matter how lucid your post is as long as you end by calling people 'haters' or 'cheerleaders'.

[Raine]

43. Because when you begin or end with that kind of thing

it takes the importance away from anything else you have written and the reader discards it. You insult the reader and then want a serious response, if that's what you really want leave off the insults.

[WI_DEM]

9. I'll say one thing for LBJ his approval rating never got as low as that faux Texan W

[Alcibiades]

11. His mean was better, too

55.1 for Johnson and 49.4 for Bush II. Only Carter. Ford and Nixon had lower average ratings.

[WI_DEM]

14. And that was with W's post-9/11 inflated numbers.

[BklnDem75]

12. Not that it will matter

As great as many claim LBJ was, they found a way to primary him, too. Many pave the way for the likes of Nixon and Reagan and wonder why the so called political center is to the right of Nixon. But hey, we sure taught them a lesson, didn't we?

[Alcibiades]

13. Don't forget Carter

Kennedy's primary challenge played some part in the debacle that was the 1980 general election.

[BklnDem75]

16. Didn't forget

I added paving the way for Reagan, as well. Don't forget those who thought Gore was no different than Bush.

[dflprincess]

23. With or without a primary challenge there was no way LBJ would have won in November and he knew it.

Vietnam was overshadowing everything else he had done.

The reason Humphrey lost was because he refused to break with LBJ's war policies until it was too late to matter. And, a lot of Democrats stayed home and those who did would have stayed home if Johnson had been the nominee. Had RFK or another anitwar candidate been the nominee the Democrats would have won that election.

It was the war policies of the Johnson Administration that paved the way for Nixon, not the voters.

[BklnDem75]

28. The voters got exactly what they opposed

Nixon was not only pro war, he and Agnew campaigned against hippies and the anti war demonstrations. The primaries didn't just weaken the Democratic party, they left the party in complete chaos, fractured beyond repair. What you refuse to see is that it's not all about getting Dem votes. When the undecideds see a party that can't support it's own leadership, they lean towards the more stable of the two. You're only half right with the beginning of your post. When a primary challenger stepped forward, there was no way LBJ was going to win. LBJ knew that so he stepped down.

[dflprincess]

30. What left the party in chaos was the assassination of RFK

and the riots in Chicago that would probably not have happened had the party had someone other than Humphrey to nominate. Up until right before the election HHH made it clear that his administration would be more of the same Johnson policies. Democrats did stay home from that year as they were disgusted.

Johnson would have lost the election with or without the primary challenge. Eugene McCarthy's strong 2nd place showing in the New Hampshire primary just gave him the excuse he needed. (Remeber Johnson's comment about losing Cronkite meant he'd lost the public - he was serious when he said that.)

When Democrats stop listening to the voters, don't blame the voters when they don't show up or vote for someone else. Nixon claimed he had a plan to end the war and the public was desperate enough and fed up enough to fall for it.

[BklnDem75]

31. The chaos started long before RFK's assassination

The blame goes exactly to the voters who decided it was better to spite their own faces. Instead of keeping a guy you disagreed with on one issue, you allowed someone who spat in the faces of anti-war protesters to become president. What happened in 68 is exactly what will happen in 2012 if someone is idiotic enough to primary against a sitting president within their own party. We will split into factions who will never vote for the other side regardless of who gets the nod. The damage in 68 was so bad, RFK would've found it impossible to get elected.

[dflprincess]

32. No. Johnson was a lame duck and a liablility to the party long before

Gene McCarthy announced that he was running.

Hubert lost the popular vote by just over 500,000 and half of that was in California. Humphrey did not inspire people and they stayed home. RFK would have gotten people out to the polls.

It was Humphrey's position on the war that cost him the election - even he eventually acknowledged that. People wanted a change in the war policy, Humphrey campaigned on more of the same, Nixon pretended to have a plan.

The war was the big issue, it overshadowed everything else and when the Democratic leadership refused to listen to the people the voters looked elsewhere or stayed home. The Democrats brought defeat on themselves and yes, it will happen again in 2010 and 2012 if the "our" representative continue to ignore us.

[BklnDem75]

33. The result was 4 more years of war

and the extension of the draft. The country as a whole moved to the right. You can continue on thinking you're making a difference by making it easier for the opposition. I guarantee you won't get what you want.

[dflprincess]

35. We would have had 4 more years of the war and the draft with Humphrey or Johnson as well

voting for the lesser of evils is still voting for evil.

And if the Democrats are going to behave like Republicans, why vote for them?

I'm beginning to think that the Dems want to lose the majority. Their lives were so much easier when they could blame the lack of progress on the Republicans and tell us how different things would be "if only" they were in the majority and had the White House. I guess they never expected the public to take them up on that.

[BklnDem75]

37. I think you have it backwards

The type of Democrats you're looking for are either in the minority or no longer exist. Like I said, the country shifted politically to the right. People like you who thought it was a good idea to teach the party a lesson back then are seeing the results. It shifted with Nixon, then with Reagan and again with Bush. You want to see the party shift back to what use to be the center? Replace conservadems with more moderate ones. Replace moderates with more liberal minded dems. When people like you sit out and let the opposition take over, you get exactly what you got in the last 4 decades. Are you starting to understand your plan is not working yet?

[dflprincess]

38. I was 15 back then

I wasn't able to vote.

And it won't be a matter of "teaching the party a lesson" this year. After sticking with the party through thick and thin for 38 years, being sold out to the insurance companies is the last straw for me. I will no longer vote for a candidate just because there is a "D" after his/her name. If I have to vote third party or just skip a race I will.

[uponit7771]

15. Wha?! Facts!?..we don't need no damn facts!! FDR's congress was 80% dem also

[VMI Dem]

18. Obama is far from an LBJ. In terms of courage and

attitude about civil rights.

[uponit7771]

19. You know LBJ fought against the VRA at first right?

[VMI Dem]

20. Before or after he was President?

Because the current President opposed civil rights for gays before and after he was elected.

Is it your point that you hope he will change his homophobic attitudes at some future time?

[Avalux]

22. I just threw up a little in my mouth. n/t

[Lilyeye]

29. I take it you didn't even bother to read (or barely read) the post.

Just get in a bash wherever you can. :eyes:

I think this type of the post is what the OP meant by "haters."

[Lord Helmet]

24. Good post. k 'n r

[depakid]

34. The fact remainans that the administration has earned a reputation for appeasement

which is part and parcel to a pattern of conflict (and risk) aversion that leads to ineffective half measures- if not outright counterproductive policies.

LBJ did not have a similar reputation- for good reason, and was therefore more difficult to cross.

[Alcibiades]

39. He was also only elected to one term as president

Not the model in all things some revisionists report him to be. There are times when you have to be the fox, and then there are times to be the lion.

[vaberella]

36. Wasn't LBJ considered one of the worst warmongers, as well?! n/t

[Hekate]

41. He was saddled with a war he didn't know how to get out of, surrounded by generals, & it ate him up

I think sincerely it wounded him to have chants of "Hey, hey, LBJ--how many kids did you kill today?" across the street from the White House. This is in no way a justification for the Vietnam War, but a way of saying I think it took him down and all but destroyed his great legacy of social programs.

I wasn't an admirer of LBJ at the time: I worked on the Gene McCarthy campaign myself; it was my first presidential election, as I only turned 21 in September that year.

But now I look at LBJ differently, and rather sadly.

Hekate

[Alcibiades]

44. Again, it depends upon context

With the exception of foreign policy, wherein both parties were generally hawkish (except for the old remnants of the Taft wing of the Republican Party), we had had Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy, all of whom seem liveral in today's context. The most conservative of these was Eisenhower, and even he would be far too liberal for today's Republican Party. So, despite the Great Society and civil rights, it's rather easy to see how liberals would be disaffected, given the quagmire that was southeast Asia at the time.

I was but a tadpole at the time, conceived during the summer of love when my dad was on leave from Vietnam to the states (stateside leave during a tour of duty in Vietnam was a little unusual, but somehow Dad managed to be home for my sister's fourth birthday), and born four days after they killed Dr. King. One thing that is different today is this: Republicans are never going to support a Democratic president on anything anymore, no matter what. So, basically, if liberals don't support a Democratic incumbent, and all the support he has in the population comes from conservadems, moderates, independents and the few remaining open-minded Republicans, we lose, and get a Reagan, or a Nixon, or a Bush.

[akbacchus_BC]

42. Like Bush!

[TomCADem]

40. K&R - Also Medicare Was JFK's Proposal - It Took Five Years To Pass

President Obama is doing more with less much faster.