Johnson's 'Great Society': 1964-69 |
|
Source A"Hey, Hey, LBJ. How many kids did you kill today?" SDS chant, first shouted at President Johnson as he went to Church one Sunday in 1968.
President Lyndon B Johnson believed in the original 19th century version of the American Dream – a country that would benefit ALL its citizens – although he did not call it that. He called it the ‘Great Society’ (as opposed to merely a ‘good’ one). In Johnson's vision for America, everyone would work, would contribute, would be treated equally, would have the opportunity to prosper. And the job of government was to clear out the barriers to that – racial discrimination, deprivation and poverty, sickness and lack of education, unfair business and pollution. He called together a team of young advisers and asked them to think as big as possible. He was better than Kennedy at politicking – tbh, nowadays we would call it bullying. In his first two years, Congress enacted over two hundred major bills and at least a dozen ‘landmark’ measures – four times the scale of the New Deal. In his time in office, Johnson DOUBLED the size of the US government. The Benefit of an Assassination In the end, his escalation of the Vietnam War ruined his reputation, and he did not bother standing for re-election in 1968. It is ironic that Kennedy, who barely scratched the surface of America’s need, and took the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation, should be hero-worshipped ... whilst Johnson, who arguably did more for America’s oppressed and needy than any other President in history, ended up roundly hated.
|
Going DeeperThe following links will help you widen your knowledge: Basic account from BBC Bitesize The US Voting Rights Act of 1965 - BBC Witness History
Essay: How far was a ‘Great Society’ created in Civil Rights, Poverty, Health and Education, 1965-69?
YouTube Johnson's Great Society - lively account of “the highpoint of liberalism”. A failed effort? - a right-wing think-tank asks the question.
|
The 'Great Society' Programme [ESCAPE]
|
Source AWe've got to carry on. We can’t abandon this fellow’s [i.e. Kennedy’s] program, because he is a national hero and there are going to be those people that want his program passed and we’ve got to keep this Kennedy aura around us through this election. Johnson, on the phone to a Democrat politician, the day after Kennedy's assassination.
Source BLBJ and Supreme Court Jusitice Abe Frontas, 1965. .
Consider:1. Study Sources A and B. What can you infer about Johnson's character? 2. How much did Johnson owe to Kennedy? 3. Debate your opinion: 'great & good' or 'great & bad'? 4. How far was a ‘Great Society’ created, 1965-69?
|
Interpretations
EVERYBODY agrees on one thing: LBJ was ‘a great man’. Just as he dominated politics at the time, biographers sometimes seem overwhelmed by his personality (see Source C). Whether you then regard him as a ‘great, good man’ or a ‘great, bad man’, however, depends on your politics. A bitter Eric Goldman (1969) – who had worked for the President but had resigned in disillusion, and who was writing at a time when Johnson was being hounded out of power – portrayed him as “the wrong man from the wrong place at the wrong time under the wrong circumstances”. The 1970s saw kindlier memoirs, which portrayed Johnson as a hero. Aide and confidant Jack Valenti (1975) and Johnson’s chosen memorialist Doris Kearns (1976) praised the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts , and the poverty, education, and healthcare programmes. Historian James Patterson (1981) noted “a fantastic drop in the number of poor and a stunning enlargement of social welfare programs”, especially Medicare and Medicaid (though he commented that they were not popular). The 1980s, especially after the election of Ronald Reagan in 1981, returned to calumny. Journalist Robert Caro (1982) called LBJ "a mixture of bootlicker and bully” and accused him of “frantic, almost desperate aggressiveness … a need to dominate … viciousness and cruelty … fear and insecurity … utter ruthlessness in destroying obstacles in that path … a seemingly bottomless capacity for deceit, deception and betrayal”. Right-wing commentators hated the Great Society, particularly the growth of central government and deficit budgets, and argued that welfare programs led to dependency rather than self-sufficiency. A recent biographer, Amity Schlaes (2019), belongs to this neo-conservative backlash – Johnson and his government did not understand economics or politics, were hijacked by left-wing extremists, and did permanent damage not only to the economy but to the people it wanted to help … the ‘Great Society’ actually caused the problems it was trying to ’solve’. Against that, other historians have tried to strike a more moderate tone. Historian Robert Dallek (1991) condemned the “hatred of Johnson that passes the bounds of common sense”, and commended the “considerable vision” of “one of the most important historical figures of our time”. More recently, biographer and historian Randall Woods (2006) cast him as the conclusion of a century of progressive politics, heir of the New Deal, and concluded: “The Great Society was breathtaking in its scope and dramatic in its impact. It created the social bedrock on which our current structure rests”.
|
Source CJohnson was a historical whirlwind unto himself [with] a personality that matched the turbulence and energy of his times. His ego was so large, his mind so meticulous, his visions so vast, and his personality so engulfing ... that over twenty biographers have struggled to make sense of a man too entertaining to forget but too complex to ever fully capture.... The word most often used to describe this man is legendary,. Kent Germany, Historians and the Many Lyndon Johnsons (2009).
|
|