home

The Relevant President

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed May 02, 2012 at 09:45:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

NYT book review of Caro's new LBJ book:

Southern Democrats were masters at bottling up legislation they hated, particularly bills expanding civil rights for black Americans. Their skills at obstruction were so admired that the newly sworn-in Johnson was firmly counseled by an ally against using the political capital he’d inherited as a result of the assassination on such a hopeless cause.

According to Caro, Johnson responded, “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?” This is the question every president must ask and answer.

The reviewer is William Jefferson Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States.

< No Immunity for Strauss-Kahn in Civil Suit | John Edwards Trial: "When Harry Met Sally" Day >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Relevant President | 44 comments (44 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 02, 2012 at 08:53:56 AM EST
    Obama should be reading this book.

    A little late now though (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Buckeye on Wed May 02, 2012 at 09:01:52 AM EST


    Parent
    True (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 02, 2012 at 09:12:34 AM EST
    Obama has been devoured by the PPUS monster he created himself.


    Parent
    Different era... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 02, 2012 at 10:17:53 AM EST
    ...and different mindset among the opposition party.  There are nearly zero "moderate" Republicans in Congress, and even the moderates won't get on board for most policy proposals, for fear of being T-B'd in the primaries.  We could also cite some of the obvious differences: even larger D majorities in 65-66 than in 09-10(and the Blue Dogs were nearly as intransigent on the major policy initiatives as the Dixiecrats in the 60s), a landslide victory of epic proportions for LBJ, and the public goodwill stemming from the aftermath of the assassination.  Not to mention the differences in the state of the economy, the media, etc.  There's no magic button Obama could push to get Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman to do his bidding(let alone John Boehner and Mitch McConnell).  

    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 02, 2012 at 10:35:59 AM EST
    think that anybody expected Obama to be able to push a magic button other than Obama himself seemed to think that he could. I think the piece on LBJ says that 1. you need to have a campaign centered around issues and 2. you need to be willing to twist some arms to get your agenda passed. One of Obama's biggest mistakes is campaigning as the PPUS candidate instead of the partisan candidate who had no use for the GOP.

    Parent
    Obama had a huge majority in the House (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 02, 2012 at 12:21:05 PM EST
    and a workable majority in the Senate.

    He wasted it on Obamacare rather than doing an actual single payer health care system modeled on Medicare.

    There is no one else to blame.

    Parent

    What was his leverage... (none / 0) (#19)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 02, 2012 at 02:05:00 PM EST
    ...to get all the Blue Dogs in the House and the Bayh/Landrieu/Nelson/Lieberman wing of the Senate to line up behind single payer?  Joe's from Connecticut(home of much of the health insurance industry) and there was practically no way he was ever going to sign off on SP.  I feel like this is the Underpants Gnomes Argument for Obama's ability to produce desired outcomes.  (Step 1: Use Bully Pulpit/Arm Twisting Step 2: ?????  Step 3: Single Payer!)

    Parent
    This again (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by sj on Wed May 02, 2012 at 04:21:03 PM EST
    Ask rather, what was his incentive to deny SP advocates a seat at the table?  By the way, the "drop dead" wasn't my specification, it was Google's option of choice once "obama single payer" was typed in.  So this is hardly a secret.

    The more this excuse is used the thinner the veneer gets.

    Parent

    Look, if you don't try then you won't win. (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 02, 2012 at 04:45:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Plus (none / 0) (#44)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 06, 2012 at 10:58:35 PM EST
    a public that would have embraced a properly explained single-payer plan in a heartbeat.

    Parent
    It's impossible to falsify (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed May 02, 2012 at 11:15:22 AM EST
    My view is that he could have pushed for much more, much earlier. But there's no need to rehash that here.

    I think this is likely to be a disputed historical point (historians disagree about stuff!)

    Parent

    You shouldn't be so (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by brodie on Wed May 02, 2012 at 12:26:17 PM EST
    quick to relegate O's lack of aggressiveness with the GOP to the historical debates.  Paul Krugman today at TPM cites the failure by the O campaign to push for more early on and to frame the current campaign around Repub obstructionism as major relevant factors which could prevent O from being reelected.

    Even as I agree with most of the points Mike notes above, I would also say O didn't try for enough when he had the political mo on his side coming to office, and now is making another political blunder in letting the GOP off the hook for our current economic sluggishness which is still fragile enough to be adversely affected by economic events overseas that could lead to another recession.

    Obama badly misread the political extremism and partisanship of this congressional GOP, being too personally committed to his naive idea of post partisan unity, something better suited to the post-Dallas atmosphere of 1964 than to today's GOP-obstruction Congress.

    Parent

    It has always seemed to me (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by sj on Wed May 02, 2012 at 01:02:24 PM EST
    Obama badly misread the political extremism and partisanship of this congressional GOP,

    ...that he doesn't see it as extremism.  

    imo

    Parent

    The buzz saw of attempting healthcare reform... (none / 0) (#17)
    by christinep on Wed May 02, 2012 at 12:57:57 PM EST
    As the Clintons also experienced in 1993.  The more one looks at both Administrations' push for reform early on when the public was encouraging & supportive of the big initiatives, the more one realizes the huge resistance in the $$$ corporate world to any healthcare change at all.  Both Clintons & Obama went big early on...and, as a result of those attempts, IMO, we are halfway there.  (A speculative aside: Maybe the circumstances of Obama's mother & her life-taking health battle with cancer inspired his first out-the-box healthcare move as we saw it.  I've always thought so.)

    Parent
    Missing (none / 0) (#20)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 02, 2012 at 04:07:17 PM EST
    A significant part of the Democrats in Congress were Dixiecrats.  And.  It took 67% of those present in the Senate to effect cloture.

    He got public accommodations Civil Rights passed BEFORE the '64 election.

    Don't minimize LBJ's accomplishments.

    I don't believe anyone expected magic buttons from Obama.

    Parent

    We elect powerfully unimaginative people (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Dadler on Wed May 02, 2012 at 11:26:41 AM EST
    Other nations elect artists and novelists, people who have committed their lives to creativity and imagination. Here we elect company men and just hope they get a bug up their ace to do the right thing.  We are a nation of salespeople, one giant Wal-Mart. 'Tis a pity.

    Outside of Churchill (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 02, 2012 at 04:46:17 PM EST
    I can't think of a single one.

    ???????

    Parent

    That Bill Clinton sure has a way with words, (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Anne on Wed May 02, 2012 at 11:39:19 AM EST
    doesn't he?  Almost to the point where I wanted to cry for the state of politics and how presidential power is being wielded these days.

    When Clinton says this:

    Even as Barry Goldwater was midwifing the antigovernment movement that would grow to such dominance decades later, L.B.J., Shriver and other giants of the civil rights and antipoverty movements seemed to rise all around me as I was beginning my political involvement. They believed government had an essential part to play in expanding civil rights and reducing poverty and inequality. It soon became clear that hearts needed to be changed, along with laws. Not just Congress, but the American people themselves needed to be got to.

    it's hard not to see that this was the hope that Barack Obama teased the electorate with: that he was the one who could change hearts and minds in service to improving the lives and securing the futures of all Americans.  That he could demonstrate the power of government to be a positive force in that effort.

    [I should add that some of us didn't hear that in Obama's campaign, but there is no doubt in my mind that, had he been so ideologically inclined, he had an enormous head start in that direction - he just didn't want to go there.]

    [And, as I contemplate the "giants of civil rights and antipoverty movements" to whom Clinton refers, I have to ask, where are those kinds of giants today?  Seems like the only giants we have today are corporate giants, only interested in furthering their own cause.]

    And Clinton strikes another chord - one that again makes it hard to ignore the comparison to Obama - when he says:

    Last year I was privileged to speak at the funeral of Sargent Shriver -- a man who served L.B.J. but who in many ways was his temperamental opposite. I said then that too many of us spend too much time worrying about advancement or personal gain at the expense of effort. We might fail, but we need to get caught trying. That was Shriver's great virtue. With Johnson's election he actually had the chance to try and to win.

    When I think of Johnson's question - "Well, what the hell's the presidency for?" - I can't help but wonder how the history books will answer that question in relation to the Obama presidency.  

    in 400 years, obama will be a trivia question (none / 0) (#43)
    by seabos84 on Thu May 03, 2012 at 11:02:06 PM EST
    answer -

    first non white boy American President was ...?

    other than that, he'll be a blur of sell outs and rich pig toadies.

    In 1980 when I was a 6 night a week 2 six packs a night, 4 buck an hour 20 year old cook I had a gut feeling that the Dems needed messaging beyond the goody two shoes stuff all the egg heads in the nice 'hoods demanded.  12 years later, risking my tail on Berring Sea fishing boats and tugs as a cook, I had a hunch that the Dems needed their own Lee Atewaters and Roger Ailes and Rush Limbaughs.

    At age 52, I do NOT give a flying frack about ... 'boo hoo ... the mean meanies were mean, and we're noblerer and gooderer and smarterer, and we all got a dream!'

    0bummer, clinton, kerry, gore ... are ALL losers cuz, unless they were born into being sell outs, the grew to be sell outs.

    rmm.

    I'll not meddle with it: it is a dangerous thing:
    it makes a man a coward: a man cannot steal, but it accuseth him;
    he cannot swear, but it cheques him;
    he cannot lie with his neighbour's wife, but it detects him:
    'tis a blushing shamefast spirit that mutinies in a man's bosom;
    it fills one full of obstacles:
    it made me once restore a purse of gold that I found;
    it beggars any man that keeps it:
    it is turned out of all towns and cities for a dangerous thing;

    and every man that means to live well endeavours to trust to himself and to live without it.

    Parent

    I just saw this too (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed May 02, 2012 at 08:57:49 AM EST
    Incidentally, I saw that same quotation in a different review of the book.

    One wonders if Bill had this episode in mind? I sure did.

    Campaigns are crazy things (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 02, 2012 at 09:05:08 AM EST


    Parent
    Yes they are (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed May 02, 2012 at 09:26:24 AM EST


    Parent
    With one exception (none / 0) (#8)
    by brodie on Wed May 02, 2012 at 10:22:29 AM EST
    (FDR in 1933), I can't think of a president who had more political capital in the bank upon taking office than LBJ in 1963.  And he wasn't about to start raising suspicions about himself and recent tragic events in his home state by failing to carry forward with JFK's unfinished legislative agenda.  Although it was a brilliant legislative stroke by Majority Leader Mansfield, and not Johnson, that made the difference on the 1964 CR bill -- that and the constant buttering of Dirksen by Mansfield and Hubert.  LBJ also had an important role but even he was unable to sway a single southern Dem senator to abandon the filibuster.

    I look forward to reading this latest Caro installment, although the reviews and excerpts I've seen so far seem to suggest this volume was written from the perspective of the Johnson camp, as with how he writes conventionally about Dallas, as if not wanting to stir up any controversy that could get in the way of this volume's (presumably) mostly positive myth making.  

    Sounds like a good read (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 02, 2012 at 12:36:59 PM EST
    I always admired LBJ. We all knew he was a crook (Landslide Johnson)but he had so much style and swagger we overlooked it.

    OTOH, Nixon, among other things, was the Daddy of the EPA and had to resign..Come to think of it, the EPA alone should have caused his impeachment.

    I see that this life is before Vietnam hit the big time and Johnson made his really big mistakes.

    Ah life. And politics.

    Fortunately (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by jondee on Wed May 02, 2012 at 12:47:04 PM EST
    there's about fifty people in the country that think that the creation of the EPA was an impeachable offence..

    Subtract the Koch brothers, and it's forty eight people..

    Parent

    Impeach (none / 0) (#21)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 02, 2012 at 04:13:46 PM EST
    for creating the EPA.

    On what grounds?

    Parent

    NOW you've done it... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by sj on Wed May 02, 2012 at 04:22:15 PM EST


    Parent
    How about high crimes and misdemeanors (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 02, 2012 at 04:47:36 PM EST
    Creating an organization destined to destroy the economy.....

    ;-)

    Parent

    What are you drinking or smoking, Jim? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by christinep on Wed May 02, 2012 at 05:15:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Just riding around with the top down, beautiful (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 02, 2012 at 05:50:06 PM EST
    day and a joy to be alive.

    How about conspiracy to crucify?

    ;-)

    Parent

    Hmmm...but, for the broader (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by christinep on Wed May 02, 2012 at 07:15:24 PM EST
    and more comprehensive and complete view, how about the burning Cuyahoga River, the Birmingham air episode, and the sad & surprising early warning of Donnemora PA?  There's political points that you make, and there's the water & the air...and the degradation that occurred in the past in our waters & in the air we breathe...you know, the alarming reality that necessarily led a bipartisan Congress (with the direction of even Richard Milhous Nixon and, later, George H.W. Bush) to set the structure & authority for EPA.

    Yes, Jim--apart from the gamesmanship of politics--there was and is a very real basis for the EPA reality.  (Someday, I'll tell you about the difficulty in getting RCRA and hazardous waste compliance from the likes of the Koch Bros. who--fundamentally--reject any authority regarding clean air & clean water.  But, the discovery of where the Kochs are environmentally is a story unto itself.)

    Parent

    Ah yes... the Koch Brothers... what would the (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 02, 2012 at 08:03:59 PM EST
    Left do without the Koch Brothers??? Have you read the latest on them in Mother Jones??? No... okay I fibbed.... Or maybe not. What's the odds on the Koch Bothers being named in Mother Jones??

    ;-)

    BTW - Heard it on the radio... San Francisco just dropped $125K to save a wild bush.... that you can buy at Home Depot for $15 bucks..... Excuse me while I puke.

    As I see it the problem is this. The EPA was needed and did good. But like so many things in government it just kept on growing and growing and growing.. The mission just kept expanding and expanding and correcting the last 1% became the last .000000001%.

    Let me know when we have a strategy for winning the war on pollution and a withdrawal strategy. Right now all I see is politicians playing games and bureaucrats feathering their nest at the expense of the taxpayer...and eventually the country.

    Gotta go now, it's starting to rain and my popcorn is getting wet. Must the Koch Brothers again.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Back in the day (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by christinep on Wed May 02, 2012 at 10:37:36 PM EST
    ...before everybody knew their name & position the Koch boys were involved in a longstanding noncompliance situation and lawsuit at the EPA regional level.  Highly instructive for me as the then supervisory attorney on the case...just a personal experience kind of thing, don't cha know.  (So when their rep spread, I had the "benefit" of an earlier introductory inkling.)

    Parent
    OK fine... Go beat up on the Koch Brothers (1.00 / 2) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 02, 2012 at 11:08:44 PM EST
    The fact remains that most people think that the EPA has exceeded what we wanted them to do and has now proceeded to crucifying people and spending zillions to fix things that don't really need fixing.

    Parent
    Most people? Give us some facts to back (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Angel on Thu May 03, 2012 at 07:45:53 AM EST
    up your comment, please.  

    I am personally unaware of anyone who wants to live in a country with dirty air and water.  I grew up very near a Superfund site so don't try to sell me your bunk.  

    Parent

    I see that your inability to recognize a bit (1.00 / 2) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:00:38 AM EST
    of snarky humor has not improved.

    But your ability to claim things I did not write is top of the line.

    Nowhere did I say that anyone wanted to live in a country with dirty air and water.

    As I see it the problem is this. The EPA was needed and did good. But like so many things in government it just kept on growing and growing and growing.. The mission just kept expanding and expanding and correcting the last 1% became the last .000000001%.

    Let me know when we have a strategy for winning the war on pollution and a withdrawal strategy. Right now all I see is politicians playing games and bureaucrats feathering their nest at the expense of the taxpayer...and eventually the country.

    Can you tell me this? If you start out to walk from your home to the grocery store and travel one half the distance each hour..... How long will it take you get there?

    Did you understand:

    The mission just kept expanding and expanding and correcting the last 1% became the last .000000001%.

    As I noted, the EPA started out doing good. But it has long outgrown that to become an agency out of control. The Texas EPA administrator who said crucifying people to control the population, as the Romans did, was OK is gone. But he did flip back the blanket and reveal what the EPA has become.

    How many want it shut down? We'll have to wait until November to know that.

    Parent

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Yman on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:16:35 AM EST
    How many want it (the EPA) shut down? We'll have to wait until November to know that.

    Really?  Because just above you didn't think we had to wait.  In fact, you claimed:

    The fact remains that most people think that the EPA has exceeded what we wanted them to do and has now proceeded to crucifying people and spending zillions to fix things that don't really need fixing.

    Of course, given that polls repeatedly show that the public supports the EPA and its mission, there's no need to "wait until November", when people will be voting based on many factors.

    Would'a thought an engineer would have learned about "variables".

    Parent

    "Most people", when Jim says it, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jondee on Thu May 03, 2012 at 12:49:21 PM EST
    means Jim. As it says in the Bible, he is legion..

    The environment, oh talk-radio-headed one, is a public health issue: you don't have a for-all-time, overarching,
    "withdrawl strategy" for public health concerns..

    It's not like that lunatic Iraq invasion that you stumped for..

    Parent

    jondee continues his personal attacks (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 03, 2012 at 01:32:41 PM EST
    because, as usual, he can't debate the point.

    Parent
    and you're telling mommy.. (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Thu May 03, 2012 at 04:07:00 PM EST
    You "heard it on the radio"..

    Now, WHO on the radio goes on and on about "envirowackos" and overpriced bushes? Could his name perhaps begin with R..what are the odds?

    Parent

    "Most people"??? - Heh (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Yman on Thu May 03, 2012 at 07:50:15 AM EST
    The fact remains that most people think that the EPA has exceeded what we wanted them to do and has now proceeded to crucifying people and spending zillions to fix things that don't really need fixing.

    ... doesn't equate to you and a couple winger buddies.  You really should think before posting such ridiculous claims of "facts" that are so easily debunked.

    In reality, the vast majority of the public supports the EPA and its mission, opposing Congressional interference as some Republicans are proposing:

        88% of Democrats, 85% of Independents, and 58% of Republicans oppose Congress stopping the EPA from enacting new limits on air pollution from electric power plants.

       67% of voters support the CSAPR and 77% of voters support the Toxics rule.
        65% of voters surveyed are confident that the health and environmental benefits of air pollution standards outweigh the costs of complying with them.
        79% of voters agree that the rules are important to enact for health reasons.
        75% of voters believe a compelling reason to implement these rules is the boost to local economies and thousands of new jobs that will be created from investments in new technology.

    77% want Congress to let the EPA do its job (including 62% of Republicans!)

    Only 18% of Americans think pollution safeguards should be lowered.

    Parent

    BTW - Nixon also gave us the Dept of (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 02, 2012 at 08:04:55 PM EST
    Energy...

    That has not worked well either.

    Parent

    how about creating an economy (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jondee on Thu May 03, 2012 at 12:50:47 PM EST
    destined to destroy the biosphere..

    Parent
    Fairy tales (none / 0) (#27)
    by Yman on Wed May 02, 2012 at 05:14:23 PM EST
    They're not an impeachable offense.

    Parent
    The Relevant President | 44 comments (44 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment