It has been 50 years since the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964. As a result, there have been a bunch of commemorations of the anniversary as well as a surprising number of articles comparing president Obama to the president Lyndon Johnson. It is an interesting comparison, and one which seems appropriate, especially now.
First of all, both Johnson and Obama came into office with tremendous support. Obama brought Congress to overwhelming numbers of Democrats as did Johnson in his first electoral test in 1964. Johnson, of course, came into office as a result of the death of John Kennedy, so there was a period of roughly a year before that election in 1964. Indeed, it was during that year when the Civil Rights Act was passed, mostly as a result of Republican support which beat strident Democrat opposition.
Second, Johnson and Obama both tended to overthink foreign policy. Johnson, of course, followed the Kennedy policy of getting the USA involved in Vietnam, a move which destroyed his presidency. That was a mistake, but the methodology which Johnson followed was truly a disaster. Instead of building forces and going all out to destroy the enemy, Johnson followed the advice of the ideologues around him and only gradually added troops to the conflict. He also placed severe limits on the targets that could be hit by American forces. In fact, at one point Johnson was personally approving the list of targets which our planes were allowed to hit. The result was a policy of gradual "escalation" that permitted the North Vietnamese to deal with the blows that resulted over time. The North Vietnamese were given the chance to adapt their tactics and to survive. That meant that by the time the full weight of American power was brought down in Vietnam, the North Vietnamese were ready for it. America's proportional response to the attacks in the war led to an endless quagmire instead of victory. (Compare this to the Gulf War where overwhelming American and allied force crushed the Iraqis in five days.)
Obama also overthinks foreign policy. Indeed, Obama seems to dither every time there is a decision to make. The man ran for election stating that Afghanistan was the good war, the proper war, the one we needed to fight. Then once in office, it took Obama nearly a year to decide what to do there. Even then his decision was to send more forces while announcing that he would be withdrawing all, ALL American forces a few years later. That was a decision that only someone sitting in the faculty lounge could like. Then, of course, there are Obama's moves (or lack of moves) in Syria, Egypt, Ukraine, Venezuela, Korea, and other place. So, both Johnson and Obama had foreign policy disasters.
Johnson and Obama also launched major liberal legislation during their days in office. Here the similarity breaks down. Johnson had huge majorities in Congress, but he knew the importance of having bipartisan support for his measures. He consulted with the Republicans again and again on many of his Great Society measures. Johnson tailored the laws in ways designed to gain support from some Republicans. Now, the Great Society measures by no means got a majority of Republican support, but a measure like Medicare passed with a substantial number of Republican votes nevertheless. Obama, however, went ahead without consulting any Republicans except for a show meeting or two which Obama used to lecture the Republicans for their failure to give up their views and accept Obama's. It would have been easy for Obama to modify Obamacare in certain ways that could have attracted twenty or thirty Republicans votes. He chose not to do so. The difference in tactics meant that Johnson had a bipartisan measure to defend if things went wrong while Obama has a totally Democrat disaster hung around the neck of his party. No one in the country other than the most extreme partisan could blame the GOP for the failure that is Obamacare.
There is one last important comparison between the two presidents. Johnson began his term with enormous public support. Indeed, in 1964 he won the highest percentage of the vote for any Democrat since World War II. By 1968, Johnson was so hated that he was unable to even run for re-election. His approval ratings were dismal. Obama also began with sky high approval by the public. In five years, he has managed to dispel that support. His approval numbers are now around 40%. Perhaps a clearer way to state that is that Obama's disapproval numbers are now around 60% of all Americans. When you consider that African Americans still approve of Obama in historically high numbers, you find that among all others, Obama's disapproval rating is roughly two out of three.
Johnson managed during his time in office to nearly destroy the future of the Democrats. Republicans won the presidency after his term and held it for five of the next six terms. My guess is that Obama will do as much again.
First of all, both Johnson and Obama came into office with tremendous support. Obama brought Congress to overwhelming numbers of Democrats as did Johnson in his first electoral test in 1964. Johnson, of course, came into office as a result of the death of John Kennedy, so there was a period of roughly a year before that election in 1964. Indeed, it was during that year when the Civil Rights Act was passed, mostly as a result of Republican support which beat strident Democrat opposition.
Second, Johnson and Obama both tended to overthink foreign policy. Johnson, of course, followed the Kennedy policy of getting the USA involved in Vietnam, a move which destroyed his presidency. That was a mistake, but the methodology which Johnson followed was truly a disaster. Instead of building forces and going all out to destroy the enemy, Johnson followed the advice of the ideologues around him and only gradually added troops to the conflict. He also placed severe limits on the targets that could be hit by American forces. In fact, at one point Johnson was personally approving the list of targets which our planes were allowed to hit. The result was a policy of gradual "escalation" that permitted the North Vietnamese to deal with the blows that resulted over time. The North Vietnamese were given the chance to adapt their tactics and to survive. That meant that by the time the full weight of American power was brought down in Vietnam, the North Vietnamese were ready for it. America's proportional response to the attacks in the war led to an endless quagmire instead of victory. (Compare this to the Gulf War where overwhelming American and allied force crushed the Iraqis in five days.)
Obama also overthinks foreign policy. Indeed, Obama seems to dither every time there is a decision to make. The man ran for election stating that Afghanistan was the good war, the proper war, the one we needed to fight. Then once in office, it took Obama nearly a year to decide what to do there. Even then his decision was to send more forces while announcing that he would be withdrawing all, ALL American forces a few years later. That was a decision that only someone sitting in the faculty lounge could like. Then, of course, there are Obama's moves (or lack of moves) in Syria, Egypt, Ukraine, Venezuela, Korea, and other place. So, both Johnson and Obama had foreign policy disasters.
Johnson and Obama also launched major liberal legislation during their days in office. Here the similarity breaks down. Johnson had huge majorities in Congress, but he knew the importance of having bipartisan support for his measures. He consulted with the Republicans again and again on many of his Great Society measures. Johnson tailored the laws in ways designed to gain support from some Republicans. Now, the Great Society measures by no means got a majority of Republican support, but a measure like Medicare passed with a substantial number of Republican votes nevertheless. Obama, however, went ahead without consulting any Republicans except for a show meeting or two which Obama used to lecture the Republicans for their failure to give up their views and accept Obama's. It would have been easy for Obama to modify Obamacare in certain ways that could have attracted twenty or thirty Republicans votes. He chose not to do so. The difference in tactics meant that Johnson had a bipartisan measure to defend if things went wrong while Obama has a totally Democrat disaster hung around the neck of his party. No one in the country other than the most extreme partisan could blame the GOP for the failure that is Obamacare.
There is one last important comparison between the two presidents. Johnson began his term with enormous public support. Indeed, in 1964 he won the highest percentage of the vote for any Democrat since World War II. By 1968, Johnson was so hated that he was unable to even run for re-election. His approval ratings were dismal. Obama also began with sky high approval by the public. In five years, he has managed to dispel that support. His approval numbers are now around 40%. Perhaps a clearer way to state that is that Obama's disapproval numbers are now around 60% of all Americans. When you consider that African Americans still approve of Obama in historically high numbers, you find that among all others, Obama's disapproval rating is roughly two out of three.
Johnson managed during his time in office to nearly destroy the future of the Democrats. Republicans won the presidency after his term and held it for five of the next six terms. My guess is that Obama will do as much again.
No comments:
Post a Comment