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 (43)
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
@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
It is only fitting that LBJ have a monument alongside Lincoln. Lincoln killed more Americans than Hitler and Tojo combined. LBJ came in second when it comes to killing Americans.
Lincoln caused the Third American Revolution which destroyed an American nation of sovereign nations and produced a European style nation of provinces in its place.
LBJ took the optimism of JFK's election and enabled 50 years of "carpetbagging" by international capitalists similar to Lincoln's War enabling the carpetbagging of the South. LBJ may have started the Fourth American Revolution which began with the war protests and demoralization of the hippy generation.
Posted by bill wald on April 23,2012 | 10:30 AM
The negative comments posted above aside, LBJ's domestic programs, prior to the Vietnam War, will go down as some of the greatest moments in our history. He was able to get landmark legislation passed including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Medicare, Medicaid, and the entire great society war on poverty series of programs. Millions of Americans are better off today because of LBJ and his programs are so popular today that not even the most conservative Republicans dare to propose and outright repeal of programs like Medicare, Medicaid, or his landmark civil rights legislation. A better comparison though is to LBJ's hero, FDR and LBJ's first months in office certainly rivaled or exceeded FDR's famed 100 days.
I spent my youth years first campaigning as a high school student for LBJ, then as a college student protesting his policies in Vietnam. Sadly, Vietnam will always tarnish his record and prevents him from being another Lincoln.
Posted by Jim Fiorentini on April 22,2012 | 01:56 PM
Ridiculous comparison. LBJ was THE most corrupt and ruthless President this country has ever had. I wonder how much money the Johnson family trust is promising Caro, and for that matter, the Smithsonian?
Posted by robertp123 on April 21,2012 | 08:11 PM
“You look at these picture spreads in Life and Look of LBJ visiting the amputees in the hospital and you say, you’re also writing about the guy who did this.” That statement certainly tells me where Caro is coming from! When Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan - a war he didn't start (history repeating itself?), will Caro be saying the same about Obama ...visiting the amputees in the hospital and you say, you’re also writing about the guy who did this. When Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, British Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, said, Lincoln undertook 'to abolish slavery where he was without power to do so, while protecting it where he had power to destroy it.' I guess after 150 years, history that doesnt fit with the hero image can be slowly forgotten. With biographers, such as Caro, LBJ will have to wait a very, very long time.
Posted by Adam on April 21,2012 | 12:41 PM
The Lincoln comparison is appropriate. President Johnson used political power to make life better for Americans. President Johnson brought electricity to the poor people of the south. President Johnson was the force for the most sweeping Civil Rights legislation in this nation's history. Presidents should be judged by their accomplishments and not by their prose.
Posted by Erik Redepenning on April 20,2012 | 01:38 PM
LBJ was no LINCOLN or even close.
I will not send American boys to Vietnam to fight a war that Vietnamese boys should fight
LBJ said this while running for president in 1964.
In 1965 he sent the first combat troops to Vietnam.
Posted by nicholas sloane on April 20,2012 | 10:14 AM
Great stuff. I just wish historians were better at math. LBJ and FDR are going to spend other people's money until we are Greece.
And, all of the poetry is fine, but the prosaic result was that the black family unit and basic moral framework had collapsed by 1970.
Posted by John Ransom on April 20,2012 | 07:15 AM
Lincoln never had to steal an election in order to obtain political power,Caro....or have you forgotten why LBJ was known as "Landslide Lyndon" after 1948?...Lincoln ever cheated on his wife...and he didn't have to invent a pretext to go to war...he didn't make a habit of lying serially to the American people...and he never lost the goodwill and trust of the American people...self delude much?
Posted by Robbins Mitchell on April 20,2012 | 03:04 AM
LBJ should be ranked up there with Lincoln?????
For what? Being one of the tallest Presidents?
That's gotta be it, because with LBJ's ushering in of the "let's create an endless supply of Democrat votes dependent on big government and bankrupt our nation" program, foolishly referred to as the "Great Society", you're SURELY not talking about the wisdom and morality of his presidency....
Posted by Twister51 on April 19,2012 | 11:57 PM
LBJ=Lincoln? Are you out of your very, very small mind?
Posted by Common Sense on April 19,2012 | 11:39 PM
Wow. I have always felt that LBJ deserved primacy just below Lincoln and Washington, and with but ahead of FDR, for the reasons discussed. But what amazing reporting, both by Mr. Cato and by Mr. Rosenbaum.
Posted by john werneken on April 19,2012 | 11:33 PM
Historians have always worshipped those who use the power of the state to control us peasants.
Posted by Jeff on April 19,2012 | 11:16 PM
LBL belongs in a class by himself. Carter was the most imcompetent President of my lifetime, but LBJ's problem was that he was competent. Lincoln was a great man. To compare LBJ to Lincoln is grotesque. In terms of pure evil, LBJ and Obama are in the same league. World class.
Posted by Rick on April 19,2012 | 10:16 PM
Don't smear Lincoln by linking him to LBJ. Johnson's destructive and unsustainable Great Society is one of the major reasons the USA is approaching insolvency.
Posted by Pronghorn on April 19,2012 | 10:10 PM
Bobby Baker told Don Reynolds on 1/20/61 that the s.o.b. John Kennedy would never live out his term and that he would die a violent death Bobby Baker, one of Lyndon Johnson’s closest associates, said this during the **inauguration** of John Kennedy
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbakerB.htm
(11) Edward Jay Epstein, Esquire Magazine (December, 1966)
”In January of 1964 the Warren Commission learned that Don B. Reynolds, insurance agent and close associate of Bobby Baker, had been heard to say the FBI knew that Johnson was behind the assassination. When interviewed by the FBI, he denied this. But he did recount an incident during the swearing in of Kennedy in which Bobby Baker said words to the effect that the s.o.b. would never live out his term and that he would die a violent death.”
Posted by Robert Morrow on April 19,2012 | 09:58 PM
Certainly LBJ should be ranked alongside Lincoln--they were both responsible for starting unnecessary wars that killed hundreds of thousands of people.
Posted by Henry Miller on April 19,2012 | 09:26 PM
You've got to be kidding me. The Gulf of Tonkin incident followed by the Vietnam war, the "Great Society" with it's runaway government and the beginning of massive deficits, the phony 'Warren Commission' featuring Arlen Spector's "magic bullet" theory, the "accidental" deaths of witnesses in the Bobby Baker & Billie Sol Estes scandals, and the loss of faith in our government.
Anyone who has read a real history of LBJ should know this has to be one of the most corrupt presidents in history and caused great harm to this country. I won't even go into how he became president.
Posted by Stephen Benedict on April 19,2012 | 08:15 PM
Hard to put LBJ in Lincoln's league. He personally prevented the passage of civil rights legislation put forth by Eisenhower, because according to him,it would destroy the Democratic party. This was well documented prior to the left rewriting history to fit their narrative. His refusal to pass legislation because of its damage to his party hardly makes him a man of principle. Blacks waited 7 more years thanks to him, but politically it worked well for the party, and now because most blacks have been misinformed they vote for Democrats every time.
Posted by Jim Thompson on April 19,2012 | 06:58 PM
The investigation of LBJ and Baker was another reason the JFK assassination took place when it did. The investigation stopped once LBJ became president. LBJ was a driving force behind the assassination and actively covered it up. He was a murderer and traitor. That's why he locked the assassination files away for 75 years, refused to allow anyone to inspect the JFK limo for bullet holes and clues, immediately having the limo rebuilt. LBJ called the prosecutors and told them not to look for anyone, because they got oswald already, and that he was the one they were looking for. Little investigation had been done at that point!! GOOGLE: "Albert thomas wink" for the most revealing wink of the 20th century, with LBJ's buddy Albert Thomas winking to LBJ upon JFK's murder, and LBJ SMILING BACK!!! A picture is worth a thousand words!! Of course, LBJ thought the cameras had stopped by then. Saying LBJ is like Lincoln could not be more incorrect. LBJ was the opposite of Lincoln, because of the murder and treason by the former. People are still so uninformed and naive, even supposed biographers that don't go into LBJ's real background.
Posted by Liti-Gator on April 19,2012 | 05:57 PM
LBJ should be regarded as the worst president ever. I hold him personally responsible for the deaths of 58,272 men of my generation during the Vietnam war that he mismanaged and lied to the American people about.
Posted by CueCat on April 19,2012 | 05:23 PM
When I remember LBJ I remember the Great Society programs and the utter destruction of the nuclear family in the black communities. My curiosity is unsatisfied as to whether the result of the program was inadvertent ( just one more government program and its unintended consequences) or deliberate. I don't believe anyone can truly answer the question authoritatively. For all his political genius he is not an inspiring personality. Like many before and after him, he went to Washington DC poor and came home wealthy. What's new about that ?
Posted by harry taft on April 19,2012 | 04:09 PM
Well, if one ignores that:
- one made impassioned speeches against slavery prior to being elected while the other was indifferent to civil rights prior to his political career, - that one is known as "Honest Abe" while the other was being investigated for kickbacks,
- that one successfuly fought a war to unite the country, and was assassinated for it, while another fought a war which ultimately divided it, and had to leave in disgrace because of it,
- that one was the primary force for freeing slaves, and whose party fought after his death to amend the Constitution to protect their rights, while the other passed a civil rights bill originally proposed by a previous administration of a different party (which gave the bill a higher percentage of their vote than did his own),
then, yes, they are almost exactly alike.
Posted by INTJ on April 19,2012 | 04:02 PM
I never write comments as I think they are usually ridiculous, but the title of this article and the article itself are absurd. Comparing a man who saved a country and witnessed 2% of his population lose their lives to an incompetent president that escalated a war with no purpose is laughable and a black mark on your publication.
Posted by kevin on April 19,2012 | 03:53 PM
Lincoln and LBJ both belong on any list of "Top Five Worst Presidents", along with both Roosevelts and Wilson. The five men most responsible for destroying the limited Constitutional Republic we once had.
Posted by Chris Mallory on April 19,2012 | 03:37 PM
While I admire the man for his work ( the author), LBJ comparable to Lincoln, seriously? Extremely unpopular when he left office. In fact he left office because he was so unpopular. The great society failures--lets expand government and his failures in leading us or failing to lead us in Vietnam.
Posted by Jay on April 19,2012 | 03:16 PM
I consider LBJ to be the worst president in my lifetime. Why? Consider the following: he created the "great society" and the resultant entitlement problems we have today. Our current debt and financial problems are a direct result of his programs.
The inflation in the late 60s and 70s started with his "guns and butter" budgets. The rampanta deficit spending we have today began with LBJ.
The Vietnam war, which he said we would not do during his election campaign of 64, was based upon a lie. And, then he decided to micromanage it in the most incompetent way.
LBJ was a failure as a president. A failure that we still pay for today.
Posted by David N on April 19,2012 | 02:56 PM
Robert Caro is a national treasure...
Posted by Bob Young on April 19,2012 | 11:21 AM