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 3 of 6)
But it’s clear in this book that Caro has come to believe that LBJ deserves a place alongside Lincoln (who also had his own racial “issues”) as a champion of equal rights and racial comity.
Caro traces LBJ’s instinct, his conviction, on the point back to a story he dug up from 1927 when LBJ was teaching in a school for Mexican kids. “Johnson’s out of college,” Caro told me, “He’s the most ruthless guy that you can imagine. Yet in the middle of it he goes down to teach in this Mexican-American town, in Cotulla. So I interviewed some of the kids who were there and I wrote the line [that] summed up my feelings: ‘No teacher had ever cared if these kids learned or not. This teacher cared.’ But then you could say that wasn’t really about race. That was about Lyndon Johnson trying to do the best job he could in whatever job he had....
“But the thing that got me was I found this interview with the janitor at the school. His name was Thomas Coranado. He said Johnson felt all these kids had to learn English. And he also felt the janitor had to learn English. So he bought him a textbook. And he would sit on the steps of the school with the janitor before and after school every day and, the exact quote is in my book but it was something like, ‘Mr. Johnson would pronounce words; I would repeat. Mr. Johnson would spell; I would repeat.’ And I said ‘That’s a man who genuinely wanted to help poor people and people of color all of his life.’”
Caro pauses. It’s a sweeping statement, which he knows presents a problem.
“That was 1927....So you say, now—until 1957, which is 30 years [later]—there’s not a trace of this. He’s not only a Southern vote, he helps [senator] Richard Russell defeat all these civil rights bills; he’s an active participant. So, all of a sudden in 1957 [he forces through that first civil rights bill since Reconstruction] because why?
“Because the strongest force in Lyndon Johnson’s life is ambition. It’s always ambition, it’s not compassion. But all of a sudden in ’57, he realizes he’s tried for the presidency in ’56, he can’t get it because he’s from the South. He realizes he has to pass a civil rights bill. So for the first time in his life, ambition and compassion coincide. To watch Lyndon Johnson, as Senate majority leader, pass that civil rights bill....You say, this is impossible, no one can do this.
“To watch him get it through one piece at a time is to watch political genius, legislative genius, in action. And you say, OK, it’s a lousy bill but it’s the first bill, you had to get the first one. Now it’s ’64. He says this thing to [special assistant] Richard Goodwin, ‘That was a lousy bill. But now I have the power.’ He says, ‘I swore all my life that if I could help those kids from Cotulla, I was going to do it. Now I have the power and I mean to use it.’ And you say, I believe that.
“So we passed [the Voting Rights Act] of 1965. So in 2008, Obama becomes president. So that’s 43 years; that’s a blink of history’s eye. Lyndon Johnson passes the act and changes America. Yeah, I do think he deserves comparison with Lincoln.”
“That’s what’s so interesting,” I say, “Because...yeah, it came across as deeply felt and yet it’s side by side with qualities that you call deeply deceptive and all these other bad things. I think you use the term at one point, [his character weaves together] ‘gold and black braids.’”
“Bright and dark threads in character,” he replies.
I ask him about one of the darkest threads: Bobby Baker. LBJ’s “protégé,” a bagman, fixer, pimp. People have forgotten just how much of an open secret the sexual goings-on were in Baker’s Quorum Club, the Capitol Hill hideaway he stocked with liquor and girls. It would be an earthshaking scandal in today’s climate and probably about a third of Congress would have to resign in disgrace if it happened now.
Caro’s narrative has an astonishing reminder of how close the investigation of Bobby Baker came to bringing LBJ down. In fact, until now, Caro believes, no one has put together just what a close call it was.
He gets up from his chair and goes to a file cabinet and pulls out a Life magazine with a cover story—MISCONDUCT IN HIGH PLACES-THE BOBBY BAKER BOMBSHELL—which came out on November 18, 1963. Life had an investigative SWAT team on the case! The Senate had a subcommittee taking testimony about kickbacks and extortion Baker engaged in on LBJ’s behalf while he was vice president. The kind of thing that got Spiro Agnew kicked out of the vice presidency.
It was in reading this testimony that Caro made a remarkable discovery. He goes to another desk and digs out a timeworn Senate investigative hearing transcript from December 1964 and points to a page on which a witness named Reynolds tells the Senate investigators he had previously testified on this matter on November 22, 1963, the day JFK was assassinated.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (42)
+ View All Comments
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
@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
+ View All Comments