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
(Page 2 of 6)
This mortal struggle explodes into view over RFK’s attempt to deny Johnson the vice presidential nomination. Caro captures the pathos of LBJ’s sudden loss of power as VP, “neutered” and baited by the Kennedy echelon, powerless after so long wielding power. And the sudden reversal of fortune that makes him once again master on November 22, 1963—and suddenly makes Bobby Kennedy the embittered outsider.
As I took the elevator up to Caro’s nondescript office on 57th Street, I found myself thinking that he was doing something different in this book than he had in the previous ones. The first three were focused on power, how “power reveals” as he puts it, something he began investigating in his first book in 1974, The Power Broker, about New York City’s master builder Robert Moses.
But this fourth LBJ volume seems to me to focus on the mysteries of character as much as it does on the mysteries of power. Specifically in the larger-than-life characters of LBJ and RFK and how each of them was such a profoundly divided character combining vicious cruelty and stirring kindness, alternately, almost simultaneously. And how each of them represented to the other an externalized embodiment of his own inner demons.
When I tried this theory out on Caro he said, “You’re making me feel very good. I’ll tell Ina [his wife and research partner] tonight. This is what I felt when I was writing the book. It’s about character.”
I don’t know if I was getting a bit of the ol’ LBJ treatment here, but he proceeded to describe how he learned about the momentous first meeting of these two titans, in 1953. “That first scene....Horace Busby [an LBJ aide] told me about the first meeting and I thought ‘that’s the greatest story! But I’ll never use it, I only have one source.’ And I called him and I said ‘Was anyone else there?’ and he said ‘Oh yeah George Reedy [LBJ’s press secretary] was there’ and I called Reedy [and he confirmed it].”
Caro’s account captures the scrupulousness of his reporting: He wouldn’t have used this primal scene if he hadn’t gotten a second source. Caro’s work is a monument to the value and primacy of unmediated fact in a culture ceaselessly debating truth and truthiness in nonfiction. Fact doesn’t necessarily equal truth, but truth must begin with fact.
“When they meet in the [Senate] cafeteria,” Caro tells me, “Bobby Kennedy is sitting at Joe McCarthy’s table and Johnson comes up to him. And Reedy says this thing to me: ‘You ever see two dogs come into a room and they’ve never seen each other but the hair rises on the back of their neck?’ Those two people hated each other from the first moment they saw each other.”
It’s very Shakespearean, this blood feud. The Hamlet analogy is apt, Caro told me. “The dead king has a brother and the brother has, in Shakespearean terms, a ‘faction’ and the faction is loyal to the brother and will follow him everywhere and the brother hates the king. It’s...the whole relationship.”
When it comes to Shakespeare, though, the character Caro thinks most resembles LBJ’s dividedness and manipulative political skills is Mark Antony in Julius Caesar.
“Is there an actor you think played Mark Antony well?” Caro asks me.
“Brando?” I ventured. It’s an opinion I’d argued in a book called The Shakespeare Wars, referring to his performance in the underrated 1953 film of Julius Caesar.
“I’ve never seen anyone else do him just right,” Caro agreed. “No one can figure out what he’s like, he loves Brutus, but you can see the calculation.”
It occurred to me only after I left to connect LBJ with another great Brando role, as the Vietnam-crazed Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now. Will LBJ become Caro’s Kurtz?
One of the great mysteries of character that haunts Caro’s LBJ volumes is the question of Johnson’s true attitude, or two attitudes, on race. I know that I am not alone in wondering whether Johnson’s “conversion” from loyal tool of racist obstructionists in the Senate to civil rights bill advocate was opportunistic calculation—the need to become a “national” figure, not a Southern caricature, if he wanted to become president. Or whether his heart was in the right place and it was the obstructionism in his early Senate years that was the opportunistic facade.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (43)
+ View All Comments
LBJ should absolutely be considered amongst the greatest Presidents. Those who say otherwise have not read about the lives of the different Presidents. LBJ came from poverty and opened America up to ALL people. Whether JFK would have been able to pass the strong legislation that LBJ did is a question to which we will never know the answer. Certainly, the Kennedy aura helped LBJ. The people who simply look at Viet Nam and call LBJ a horrible President do so with a narrow focus. As the focus expands, so too, will LBJ's place as a great President.
Posted by Ed Van Sloten on February 22,2013 | 09:03 AM
I cannot beleive a man from Texas is responsible for the civil rights fiasco that wasted trillions on supposed equality and against poverty and we are now more impoverished than ever before! ,!!
Posted by on February 12,2013 | 07:01 PM
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
+ View All Comments