Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I am sure.

It seems to me that Johnson was way over his head when it came to foreign and military policy. His forte was domestic policy. I can't see him ever having the confidence (in these fields only!) to override his advisers.

Am I missing something?

1966: By year's end, U.S. troop levels reach 389,000 with 5008 combat deaths and 30,093 wounded.

1967: By year's end, U.S. troop levels reach 463,000 with 16,000 combat deaths to date. By this time, over a million American soldiers have rotated through Vietnam

Source: The History Place

Ann wrote: "It seems to me that Johnson was way over his head when it came to foreign and military policy. His forte was domestic policy. I can't see him ever having the confidence (in these fields only!) to o..."

He had some successes abroad but certainly not as many as he had domestically.

In this chapter, Darman notes the passage of Medicare, the education bill which made the federal government a significant player in elementary and secondary education and the voting rights bill.

Darman emphasizes the utopian nature of Johnson's Great Society Program because his theme is that the competing "myths' that both Johnson and Reagan told about the state of America and its future were wildly exaggerated and harmful.

However, many other "Great Society" programs have endured and become an important part of our system: expanded Social Security, Medicaid, Head Start, regulations to protect the environment and food safety, the expansion of the Food Stamp program that heretofore existed only as a pilot program, establishment of the National Endowment of the Arts and the Public Broadcasting Program, a new immigration act in 1965 that ended the quota system and opened up the immigration system to more ethnic and racial groups, the Civil Rights Act of 1968 etc., etc.

Check out this list of Great Society programs at Wikipedia: I was very surprised at the scope of the legislation that was passed.

This is also an interesting series of articles in 2014from the Washington Post, evaluating the Great Society fifty years later:

Of course, there were many misguided anti-poverty programs as well.

All of this reminded me of what a very pivotal figure Johnson was in our history. It also helped me understand how this expansion of the federal government incited the conservative opposition.

Excellent, Ann.

Even though some of the initiatives on the War on Poverty missed their mark, overall poverty was reduced. I'd also argue that failing in an effort to reduce poverty, or otherwise help our brothers and sisters, holds greater benefit than "winning" wars such as those we entangle ourselves more often than not.

Excellent reminder of all of the great things that LBJ was able to do. Great post Ann and great comment and observation Martin.

I think that everything was summed up in one sentence- (pg. 260) "...things were changing too fast..." People didn't have the time to adjust to one change before another one came along. And these were major changes, not just going from a two-piece swimsuit to a bikini. The Votng Rights Act made major changes, especially in small towns where the poll tax and separate voting facilities were the norm. Medicare was a big deal. Riots being shown on TV were terrifying. And Vietnam was so very different from WWII...Too much, too fast.
Another thing that caught my attention was the mention of the fear of Vietnam triggering a nuclear war. We don't have the same kind of fear of nuclear war today, but in the 1950s and 1960s that was VERY real. Bomb shelters going up everywhere - I remember bomb drills in school (as if crawling under my desk would have saved me!).
And I wonder how much of the blame for the unsettled feeling of the time can be laid on the media..."Feeding the fear was now a chief pastime in the culture." (Pg. 266)

Good point about the media, Tomi. "Feeding the fear" has gotten even worse in our own day with 24 hour news cycles. It does get viewers.

As many have pointed out, the Vietnam War was the first one that TV really brought into American living rooms. Race riots were also very scary, even if they weren't happening in your neck of the woods.

Lots of changes - especially among the young people who had different sexual morals and resisted listening to their elders about the need for another war.

Good stuff Tomi and Ann.

Indeed, Ann, many of these programs are alive and a president today is unlikely to dismantle it, probably make it more accountable, though.

A lot of programs need to be more accountable, Bryan. Good intentions aren't enough.

The programs themselves are excellent ones. And I am delighted that they are.

There is no program that should not have full accounting making sure that there is no corruption of course. But in terms of helping people I am all for that.

LBJ had some great accomplishments (pages 258-259). I wonder if later history will view him with more greatness than history shortly after his tenure, since Vietnam so strongly colored his years shortly afterward.

I don't know if the Watts events took away from LBJ's civil rights efforts...or perhaps only confirmed the necessity of what he was enacting (pages 280-281). At any rate, an alarming and tragic time...

He is pretty highly ranked and would have been ranked higher except for Vietnam.

Many of the comments have been highly interesting. Being a person with a fairly involved background of faith it cqn be risky to comment on things of a religious nature. First, it is always important to remember that fundametalism in any religion is at one end of a spectrum with liberalism (might I even say "fundamental liberalism") at the other. In my mind the perpetrators of the crusades and inquisition and other such abnormalities have flown in the face of what a Christian is actually supposed to be based on the teachings of the founders and were about as Christian as fire is cold. I believe the same about radical Islam. They do not represent the vast majority of Muslim peoples. If they did we could not co-exist in our cities here. I think it is important that we define these things if we are going to talk of them. My mind-set as a person of faith is no where near the mindset of a crusader or a slave-owner those were the product of misguided interpretation. Many of our Presidents have sounded Christian and even "looked" Christian but have not really represented Christian values. There are many believers of all faiths that sit toward the middle of the spectrum and I believe this is the only place where peace can begin and only if the conversation is not politicized. The moral majority as rarely actually spoken for the majority. There are things our government does and allows that I believe are wrong and must be resisted, however, the way some groups (fundamental or radicalized) have gone about it just earn unfair labels for the vast majority of people of faith (regardless of which faith they follow).

For some of these reasons and others it bothers me as well that some of our young people are getting sucked into these fights that are based on misunderstanding and hate.

Michael wrote: "Many of the comments have been highly interesting. Being a person with a fairly involved background of faith it cqn be risky to comment on things of a religious nature. First, it is always import..."

Potentially but unfortunately the reality is that the terrorists that we have known of late and the beheadings that unfortunately we have not wanted to see have at their core fundamentalism or an extreme faction which is not doing their cause any good.

One other thing - tolerance is always a position to take and to foster and blind hate is very bad.
I understand your interpretation of fundamentalism can be in any religion - very true - but what we are seeing in the name of religion does not deserve tolerance. As far as what you said about some of our Presidents looking Christian but not exuding Christian values is probably not something folks should feel expert enough to judge. We probably and should look at the moral fiber of our Presidents and ethics of course but religion - I am content to keep separate church from state.

Unfair labels are one thing for sure. One other thing which I think is fair to comment upon is that from your view of the Presidents - Kennedy, LBJ and Reegan - who do you think in the privacy of their lives was more of a religious person or more Christian. I bet Kennedy went to church more followed by LBJ and yet Reagan who espoused constantly spiritual values and God - did not. And in all three instances we have Presidents who wrestled with their demons. Reagan was more loyal to his wife but did he represent Christian values in his policies. You can see that it is hard to judge or insert religious values and really keep separate church from state. We can expect ethical behavior however in our presidents. I am sure that what they refer to as the moral majority is as you stated does not speak for the majority. We have the voting booth in America but then we have to look at the candidates we have to choose from. It takes a big ego to run for President and all three of the men discussed in this book had huge ones.

Martin - here is the book as a whole thread - please take your sidebars there - /topic/show/...

Bentley, thanks for your comments. I hope I did not leave the impression that I was judging any one presidents religious status. This would not have been my intent. Only God is worthy to judge where a person actually stand in relationship to their Creator.

You did not leave that impression at all. I agree with your last sentence and that was the point that I was making. I thought there were real discrepancies between the president's outward church going and their private religious and spiritual actions. I think the sentence that I was responding to started with "Many of our presidents"

Kathy wrote: "(Page 266) "About 70 percent ...think of the book as a reflection on American life, this collision between the desperate, ruthless, wandering, savage part of American life, and the other, which is ..."

I was 10 in 1965 - too young to remember details, but in a mid-size Michigan city, things seemed pretty safe and secure. Within a couple of years, though, it became more confusing. TV news was showing violence in the summer riots, contrasted with sheer silliness of Gilligan's Island and Batman (the 1960s TV show was definitely not the "Dark Knight of the early comics or current movies). By 1966, I had a paper route and would read the headlines as I delivered them. The Vietnam war was certainly more prominent than in the previous few years. I remember that our paper had a box listing the death toll for American servicemen in the bottom corner of the front page. Perhaps they thought it was a nice touch to honor the dead in some way, but I always thought it was pretty impersonal. Sometimes it was even like the box score of a baseball game - we "only" had 70 killed, but they had 240. that sort of thing. Pretty grim.

Peter wrote: "LBJ sort of reminds me of Taft.

Here's how. I am also reading The Bully Pulpit about Teddy Roosevelt and Taft.

Taft was meant to be a judge. It's what he wanted to be all his life; he was good..."

This chapter raised a comparison for me too, of LBJ and Taft, and it was also brought on by reading The Bully Pulpit last year. What struck me is how Taft and LBJ faced the press compared to their immediate predecessors. Darman says that JFK loved meeting with the press, and so did Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt used the press as part of his political plans. He loved meeting with them, sometimes jousting with them, and it sounds like JFK did the same. Taft, while not as hostile to the press as LBJ could be, just didn't enjoy dealing with them. He had trouble bantering with them like TR did, and as a result the press did not warm up to him.

Just another example of how history repeats itself.

by Doris Kearns Goodwin

Very true, Dave, press relations are key for any presidency. Moving forward in history, the Washington press were not fans of the Clintons and the Clintons did not like the press, either.

Thanks for sharing about Michigan. It reminds us that the press did play a role in creating "uneasiness" throughout the country.

This is a perfect book for a group discussion, Bentley. Thank you very much for having all of us participate. There are some fantastic points being brought to our attention by you, the moderators and the group.

You are welcome Hunter - I am really enjoying the book. Hunter do not forget to do your review of the book here on this thread with the disclaimer that you got the book from the History Book Club. Here is the link:

/topic/show/...