Should LBJ Be Ranked Alongside Lincoln?
Robert Caro, the esteemed biographer of Lyndon Baines Johnson, talks on the Shakespearean life of the 36th president
- By Ron Rosenbaum
- Smithsonian magazine, May 2012, Subscribe
It has become one of the great suspense stories in American letters, the nonfiction equivalent of Ahab and the white whale: Robert Caro and his leviathan, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Caro, perhaps the pre-eminent historian of 20th-century America, and Johnson, one of the most transformative 20th-century presidents—in ways triumphant and tragic—and one of the great divided souls in American history or literature.
When Caro set out to write his history, The Years of Lyndon Johnson, he thought it would take two volumes. His new Volume 4, The Passage of Power, traces LBJ from his heights as Senate leader and devotes most of its nearly 600 pages to the first seven weeks of LBJ’s presidency, concluding with his deeply stirring speeches on civil rights and the war on poverty.
Which means his grand narrative—now some 3,200 pages—still hasn’t reached Vietnam. Like a five-act tragedy without the fifth act. Here’s where the suspense comes in: Will he get there?
In 2009 Caro told C-Span’s Brian Lamb that he had completed the stateside research on Vietnam but before writing about it, “I want to go there and really get more of a feel for it on the ground.” Meaning, to actually live there for a while, as he’d lived in LBJ’s hardscrabble Texas Hill Country while writing the first volume, The Path to Power.
Caro still plans to live in Vietnam, he told me when I visited him in his Manhattan office recently. He’s 76 now. There has been an average of ten years between the last three volumes’ appearances. You do the math.
I’m pulling for him to complete the now 30-year marathon, and the guy who met me at his Manhattan office looked fit enough for the ordeal of his work, more like a harried assistant prof at Princeton, where he studied. He was in the midst of frantically finishing off his galleys and chapter notes and told me he just realized he hadn’t eaten all day (it was 4 p.m.), offered me a banana—the only food in the office—and when I declined, I was relieved to see, ate it himself. The man is driven.
Those who have thought of Caro as one of LBJ’s harshest critics will be surprised at the often unmediated awe he expresses in this new book: “In the lifetime of Lyndon Johnson,” he writes of LBJ’s first weeks as president, “this period stands out as different from the rest, as one of that life’s finest moments, as a moment not only masterful, but in its way, heroic.”
But how to reconcile this heroism with the deadly lurch into Vietnam? I have my suspicions as to what he’s going to do, and you might too when you get to the final page of this book where he writes, after paying tribute to this heroic period, about the return to the dark side, “If he had held in check those forces [of his dark side] within him, had conquered himself, for a while, he wasn’t going to be able to do it for long.”
“Do you mean,” I asked him, “that the very mastery of power which he’d used for civil rights gave him the hubris to feel he could conquer anything, even Vietnam?”
“I’ll have to take a pass on that,” Caro said. He won’t reveal anything until he writes it.
“But do you have the last sentence written?” I asked. He’s said in the past he always writes the last sentence of a book before starting it. This would be the last sentence of the entire work, now projected to be five volumes.
To that he answers “yes.” He won’t, of course, say what it is.
Will that last sentence reveal a coherence in the portrait that he will have painted of LBJ’s profoundly divided soul, a division that makes him such a great and mystifying character? Worthy of Melville. Or Conrad. Or will the white whale slip away into the heart of darkness that is Vietnam?
The new volume takes us back to where his last Pulitzer winner, the 1,200-page-long Master of the Senate, leaves off, with LBJ having, by sheer force of will and legislative legerdemain, coerced the obstructionist, racist-dominated Senate to pass the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction. It follows him through his strangely reticent, self-defeating attempt to win the Democratic nomination in 1960 (a window into an injured part of his psyche, Caro believes), portrays his sudden radical diminishment as vice president and sets up, as a dominant theme of the book, the bitter blood feud between LBJ and Robert F. Kennedy.
Single Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (41)
+ View All Comments
I can't believe I just came across this ridiculous question, "Should LBJ be Ranked Alongside Lincoln". I'm flabbergasted that I even see such an idiotic question posted any place! Amazing! LBJ should have been locked in prison where he belonged. Where he would have rightly been if not for his interference and manipulation of political events. LBJ is without question, the worst President of my lifetime, a National embarrassment and fraud. One that has yet to be given his true place in history of scorn and disgust. I have faith that in time, even greater facts will be revealed implicating LBJ's crimes.
Posted by on October 25,2012 | 07:38 PM
Lincoln did not start The civil War, he asked the south to stay in the union in his first Inaugural address. It was the south that started the war by firing on Ft. sumter, a FEDERAL FORT. Was Lincoln supposed to allow this treason to stand? That's ridiculous. Lincoln did not ruin limited government, just because he believed that slavery should not be allowed in the U.S.!! Sounds like we have some bizarre confederate sympathizers on here that have no historical clue!! South Carolina's Ordnance of secession, considered the Declaration of Indepence for the confederacy is rife with complaints about attacks on slavery and the rigghts of slaveholders, so don't bother us with the ignorant statements about how the confederacy wasn't fighting for slavery, but merely "states rights." They were happy with the federal govenment when the supreme court gave the south the Dred Scott decision, allowing slavery throught the country.Dred Scott case was opposed to state's rights, in that states were not to recognize any rights of slaves. The slaveholder's rights trumped state's rights, as a matter of U.S. constitutional law per the Dred Scott decision that the south so loved.
Posted by Liti-Gator on July 3,2012 | 01:25 PM
"...coerced the obstructionist, racist-dominated Senate to pass the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction." This is an incorrect statement. The first piece of civil rights legislation passed after Reconstruction was the Civil Rights Act of 1957, passed under the Eisenhower administration. It was voting rights legislation.
Posted by Robert W. on June 13,2012 | 11:16 AM
"he goes down to teach in this Mexican-American town, in Cotulla. ... I wrote the line [that] summed up my feelings: ‘No teacher had ever cared if these kids learned or not. This teacher cared.'" Yes, no doubt all previous teachers before LBJ had been raving racists who did not care if their kids learned and that was why they went into teaching and worked all day at it for low pay.
Posted by Thomas Michael Andres on May 25,2012 | 12:21 AM
LBJ has been fingered as the kingpin in the kennedy asassination by non other than super slueth e howard hunt in newly released videos and recordings his son st john hunt has released.also he faked 'false flagged'the gulf of tonkin event to start vietnam war.he is a war criminal and a murderer and should not be compared to Lincoln.
Posted by michael peck on May 6,2012 | 12:38 AM
Richard III; the evocation of LBJ.
Posted by Dr. Sandy Kramer on May 5,2012 | 07:58 AM
Reality differs, Ryan H... let me suggest that many Americans ARE IN poverty because of those two programs, not despite them. Thinking of the larger timeline, starting with a visit to the US Census Dept's website which points out that poverty has only increased despite (or because of?) those programs. I do believe in caring for the least of my brothers and prove it weekly/monthly by taking care of the poor both at home and abroad, but nanny states are the worst possible thing for human beings. We are meant to be living in harmony with the earth, not in some pre-packaged environment addicted to the filth offered by a broken state with corrupt politicians. That's no good. I applaud the author's multi-decade efforts but to label LBJ in a good light is harrowing.
Posted by Kure on May 4,2012 | 11:45 AM
There might be enough material on LBJ's long political history, including his tenure as President, to make an equivalently long biography as one on Lincoln. In that respect perhaps the biographers should be compared. But LBJ should not be esteemed alongside Lincoln for reasons other commentors have left here. Perhaps we do idolize Lincoln overly much, but having lived during LBJ's years I realize what this biographer is attempting to do is raise Johnson above the public's impression of him now that decades have passed. An objectionable effort.
Posted by R Burns on May 3,2012 | 07:13 PM
LBJ was a bully and a coward, two descriptions I've never heard applied to Lincoln. Many of LBJ's anti-poverty programs were thoughtlessly planned wastes of money that destroyed families, and his failure to stand up to the generals over Vietnam cost an untold number of lives. I commend Caro on his historical research. Such books are needed. But let's not compare LBJ to Lincoln.
Posted by Gregory Urbach on May 3,2012 | 06:39 PM
I think LBJ is unfairly villainized. While his foreign policy was terrible and should be criticized, he did wonders for many Americans with his domestic policies and for that he deserves recognition.
Posted by Alana Nora on April 25,2012 | 02:38 PM
Excuse me, but rating Lincoln and Johnson IS correct. Both were political opportunists. Both had opportunities to improve the nation. Lincoln kept blacks in the Union slaves, while freeing only those in the rebellious states. Lincoln played 'general' while ignoring the best military advice. And Johnson? There is not space to list 'landslide' Lyndon's accomplishments which were a direct result of political opportunity. He cared not one bit for the black man, only for that which would benefit him. Yes, rate them the same. But Lincoln deserves no high place in history.
Posted by Stephen Downey on April 23,2012 | 11:23 PM
It's remarkable how many of the people commenting on the piece appear not to have read the piece all the way through. Plus, try and leave your present-day political biases at the door. Last i checked, Bill Clinton left the presidency running surpluses, so I'm not sure how the Great Society is bankrupting us all on its own.
Posted by Joey B on April 23,2012 | 02:48 PM
@Ryan H: Well said. And to the person who said Lincoln killed more Americans than Hitler: Goebbels would have admired the way you argue there, buddy.
Posted by AfterBenH on April 23,2012 | 02:04 PM
While I don't believe LBJ should be up there with Lincoln, it's a shame that most posters to this article not only refer to our current president as 'evil' with LBJ but are vehement in their opposition to both the Great Society and the New Deal. There would be a great many people who would be in poverty if not for those programs, but that obviously doesn't matter to some of you people who care more about their tax rate than the lives of other people. Someone else stated that Lincoln started the 'unneccessary' Civil War. I'm guessing that came from a Southerner who hasn't realized that they lost and can't own people anymore. Also, there is no reason to call Mr. Caro or Mr. Rosenbaum 'small minded'. I didn't know that Princeton-educated, Pulitzer-prize winning authors could even be considered small-minded. So many of you on the right-wing are quick to throw stones at evil liberals, but cannot take it when someone gives it back. Soon you'll be preaching about what a moral person Nixon was.
Posted by Ryan H. on April 23,2012 | 10:52 AM
+ View All Comments