This is not Lyndon Johnson’s Senate

[ProSense]

This is not Lyndon Johnson’s Senate

Posted by Ezra Klein



When I think about the difference between Lyndon Johnson’s Senate and Barack Obama’s, I think of a memo — pictured above — that Mike Manatos, who served as Senate liaison for Johnson, sent to Larry O’Brien, who directed Johnson’s campaign. It was written on Dec. 8, 1964, just days after the election. Manatos is giving O’Brian an overview of how the Senate elections improved the chances of passing Medicare. Manatos wrote:

Of the 49 votes cast on behalf of Medicare (Gore amendment) on September 2, 1964, we lost two supporters in the last election -- Senators Keating and Salinger. However, we picked up five new supporters -- Senators Bass, Harris, Kennedy (Robt.), Montoya, and Tydings.

We also had three supporters who missed the vote this year -- Senators Bayh, Hartke, and Kennedy (Ted).

Thus if all our supporters are present and voting we would win by a vote of 55 to 45.

Of course, if we could persuade Senator Russell (who is on the brink) to support Medicare this year our margin should be even greater.

That letter would never be written today. Confidently asserting that any major piece of legislation could pass with 60 votes would be enough to get a political aide fired. The modern Senate requires 60 votes to pass pretty much anything. The exception are bills that can be passed through budget reconciliation, but that process comes with its own limitations and problems. If you don’t know that today, you are not qualified to work in politics.

In Johnson’s time, however, the Senate was not governed by the filibuster. This chart counts “cloture” votes, which are the votes you take to break a filibuster, and thus give us a way to count whether the majority is having to face down a lot of filibusters. Johnson was president during the 88th, 89th, and 90th sessions of Congress. And as you can see, there weren’t many filibusters:



- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/this-is-not-lyndon-johnsons-senate/2012/05/08/gIQAPCOsAU_blog.html

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

[ProSense]

1. Kick! n/t

[railsback]

2. No shit

Many here STILL can't comprehend this, and expect Obama to wave his magic wand.

[Art_from_Ark]

3. LBJ didn't waste his time trying to get his opponents to sing Kumbaya

He twisted arms, he made impassioned speeches. In short, he LED. When it came to Medicare (and civil rights), he saw himself as an ADVOCATE, not a MODERATOR.

[Skittles]

8. "I don't trust a man unless I've got his pecker in my pocket"

that's something I wish Obama would learn

[Recursion]

19. "He twisted arms, he made impassioned speeches"

Impassioned speeches don't do anything.

Twisting arms works when you have a strong enough caucus in Congress to do it; Obama doesn't.

[uponit7771]

23. Even if Obama LITERALLY twisted arms the bashers would still bash...the need to place such onus on

...one person

[loyalsister]

31. Earmarks

made it into a lot of those bills. It used to be a carrot\stick operation. Not only does punishment not work if there is nothing to be gained.
It doesn't work if there is no credible punishment to threaten. Are they going to tell Ted Cruz that Democrats will get behind a primary opponent?
Kit Bond was not challenged in MO because he brought home the bacon.
The outrage over earmarks was legitimate, but they threw out the baby with the bath. They were an important tool that has reduced the negotiating power of the executive branch.

[Recursion]

38. That's a good point, and I thought the earmarks demagogery was cheap rhetoric

Especially since earmarks don't actually increase total spending.

[loyalsister]

39. Exactly

My former senator- Kit Bond has thank plaques all over the place. My local bus station, university buildings, etc. for bringing home the pork. All of which were built\expanded under Bush.

[treestar]

27. Is it to be considered a good thing

to twist arms? To get through something the people don't want, because you are a son of a bitch and know how to bully people?

There were more Democrats there, it was pre-Reagan days. It is not just that LBJ was a tough guy. And the admiration of him sounds like admiration of bullies. People make him sound like a bullying asshole and admire him for it, like he could get what he wanted even if our other elected representatives and the people as a majority did not. People need to be careful with this - it's not at all a liberal/progressive attitude.

So why didn't Johnson get us single payer then? He had the ability to according to this line of thinking. Maybe he didn't really care?

[oldhippie]

30. Everybody likes a bully .....

.... when they are doing something you want. It's not like DUers are different than anyone else.

[loyalsister]

32. +1

I have never been impressed by what seem to be Johnson's most admired methods

[graham4anything]

28. AND he got REPUBLICAN support when the Wallace RACIST Democrats voted against things

Which is why we again need an 80-20 and then render the extremists obsolete on both sides like LBJ did and FDR did.

I suggest one learn history.

The Wallace DIXIECRATS were DEMOCRATS, and their equiv. is the Tea party.
Both hate every single minority and women too.

But Glad to see the great LBJ getting some love.

He is the #2 or #3 President of all time, and the single MOST LIBERAL president ever.

and he did what NO ONE else would do or would have done for years.

[freshwest]

4. +1. This country is much more conservative than it was in LBJ's day and the Dems owned the HoR.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

9. The country isn't more Conservative. The Beltway is.

[freshwest]

12. The states make the Beltway. They own the HoR. They didn't in LBJ's day.

That same Democratic majority nearly removed Nixon from office with the Watergate hearings. We lost the majority we'd held for half a century in the 1990s. Since then they've been on the hunt for us. That is all from the states that elected them. We focus on D.C. a lot, but D.C. is made in the states.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

16. We lost the majority due to Newt's "word list"...

It put in a bunch of mindless idiots who don't know how to govern but know how to run a negative campaign and a beltway media that was infiltrated by the Right Wing as well. These idiots all repeat the same talking points and "facts" to them are the talking points they all repeat. Like "Reagan won the Cold War" and "This is a Center-Right Country" and "Iraq Is The Central Front Of The War On Terror".

Republicans are so CONVINCED that they have the absolute LOYALTY of their voters that they confidently LIE and expect to be applauded for it. Meanwhile, the country is a lot more fickle than they think.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

13. +1 n/t

[SunSeeker]

5. k & r

[Rowdyboy]

6. Frank Church, Wayne Morse, Bill Proxmire, Birch Bayh, Vance Hartke, Ed Muskie....

Ted Kennedy, Phil Hart, Gene McCarthy, Stuart Symington, Al Gore Senior, Ralph Yarbrough, Gale McGee and Frank Moss. Todays Democratic senators are a pathetic shadow of the senators who governed in the 1960's-80's.

I understand why younger progressives have no respect for the party. It is a pathetic shadow of the party I joined as a teenager. I can't fault anyone for not proudly following Harry Reid.

[JDPriestly]

14. Let's add George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, J. William Fullbright

and let's remember that they remembered FDR and Truman as well as Hoover and Coolidge.

The Democrats of Johnson's time were proud to be liberals. They were proud to be Democrats. They were proud to tax the rich. They were proud to help the poor and make the rich pay for it. They were proud to have defeated the NAZIs and Fascists. They were real statesmen.

In addition, let's remember, that they had to deal with Joseph McCarthy and the crazies on the right. The Southern Democrats were the Republican Southerners of today only far worse when it came to race and some other issues.

Harry Reid, President Obama and, yes, Nancy Pelosi are yellow-bellied compared to LBJ.

I must, however, caution that no one knows what LBJ's relationship with John F. Kennedy was really like. LBJ was no saint. He could work wonders with his difficult Congress -- just as difficult as the Congress with which Obama is saddled. But LBJ had serious moral failings. LBJ knew the souls and sins of his friends and how to use his knowledge to get what he wanted. That is the impression I had as a young woman in the Johnson era.

[Rowdyboy]

37. Absolutely. There were so many solid liberals in the senate then...and the house...and even in

the Republican party. Today's senate is a sad reflection of a once-impressive body.

[JDPriestly]

40. We had so many liberals because of the bold narrative that FDR told.

FDR did not just do things. He taught Americans. He shared his opinions with Americans.

Obama has not made an effort to educate the American people about the things we need to admit about ourselves and work on. FDR did that. For all his mistakes, FDR did the right thing when it came to healing the American people and building trust in government.

Obama has not done that. During the campaign prior to the 2012 election, after the first debate, I thought Obama was catching on. He didn't. He hasn't.

[RudynJack]

15. Don't blame the leaders...

blame the voters. It's a very long pendulum, and it'll swing back soon. But we elect the person who can get elected. There used to be liberal Republicans. That's gone now.

[Art_from_Ark]

33. Don't forget J. William Fulbright

Senator from Arkansas (1945-75) who was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His book "The Arrogance of Power" should be required reading for every politician.

[Rowdyboy]

35. Absolutely a hero from my youth. There were a lot of them back then that deserved respect

I also forgot Walter Mondale, Fred Harris, Ralph Yarborough and Paul Douglas.

There were even decent Republicans-Chuck Percy, Charles Mathias, Mark Hatfield, John Sherman Cooper, Cliff Case, Robert Packwood and Edward Brooke.

Its really frightening to realize just how far to the far right we have swung in 50 years, absolutely terrifying. I'm glad I won't likely live to see the ultimate result.

[hedda_foil]

7. Ezra seems to have caught on.

Despite his obvious brilliance, until quite recently, he echoed the opinions of the Beltway popular kids (aka Professor Krugman's Very Serious People). But I've noticed a welcome change in his attitude lately,where he's willing to call bullshit for what it is, and even to point out that it stinks. Good for him.

[Hekate]

10. Moral decay. How the hell can we expect Obama to get anything done at all?

[JDPriestly]

11. I remember LBJ's time. The Southern Democrats filibustered. They stood on the floor and

spoke for hours and hours.

I will never, ever forget when Sen. Robert Byrd, yes, the senator from West Virginia, joined in the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Byrd joined with Southern senators to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964,[27] personally filibustering the bill for 14 hours, a move he later said he regretted.[28] Despite an 83-day filibuster in the Senate, both parties in Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Act, and President Johnson signed the bill into law.[29] Byrd also opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 but voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1968. In 2005, Byrd told The Washington Post that his membership in the Baptist church led to a change in his views. In the opinion of one reviewer, Byrd, like other Southern and border-state Democrats, came to realize that he would have to temper "his blatantly segregationist views" and move to the Democratic Party mainstream if he wanted to play a role nationally.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

Johnson was a good old boy who knew everybody in the Senate, their strengths and weaknesses. Johnson had taught school in Texas in his earlier years and was truly dedicated to civil rights it turned out. Johnson had a lot of faults, but he knew how to get legislation through the deeply divided Congress with which he had to work."There was no more powerful majority leader in American history," biographer Robert Dallek writes. Dallek stated that Johnson had biographies on all the Senators, knew what their ambitions, hopes, and tastes were and used it to his advantage in securing votes. Another Johnson biography writes, "He could get up every day and learn what their fears, their desires, their wishes, their wants were and he could then manipulate, dominate, persuade and cajole them." At six-foot four inches tall, Johnson had his own particular brand of persuasion, known as "The Johnson Treatment".[124] A contemporary writes, "It was an incredible blend of badgering, cajolery, reminders of past favours, promises of future favours, predictions of gloom if something doesn't happen. When that man started to work on you, all of a sudden, you just felt that you were standing under a waterfall and the stuff was pouring on you."[124]

. . . .

Major legislation signed (during Johnson's presidency)

1963: Clean Air Act of 1963[139]
1963: Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963[140][141]
1963: Vocational Education Act of 1963[142]
1964: Civil Rights Act of 1964
1964: Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964
1964: Wilderness Act
1964: Nurse Training Act of 1964[143]
1964: Food Stamp Act of 1964
1964: Economic Opportunity Act
1964: Housing Act of 1964[144]

1965: Higher Education Act of 1965
1965: Older Americans Act
1965: Social Security Act of 1965
1965: Voting Rights Act
1965: Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965
1966: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
1967: Age Discrimination in Employment Act[145]
1967: Public Broadcasting Act of 1967
1968: Architectural Barriers Act of 1968
1968: Bilingual Education Act
1968: Civil Rights Act of 1968
1968: Gun Control Act of 1968


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson#Legacy

Johnson had his faults. Viet Nam was a huge Johnson mistake. But Johnson could work the Senate in a way that neither Obama nor Biden can. It's sad that we do not have a Johnson in the White House today in so far as getting legislation like the gun control laws we need through.

Remember when you think about Johnson that in fact the country was so deeply divided especially about race that Nixon was able to begin to win the Southern states, which had been staunchly Democratic for generations, to vote Republican.

It was when Johnson left office that the deep divisions in the country, a sort of backlash against the progress we made under Johnson on race and poverty issues, grasped so many voters. But Johnson was really a genius at working with that deeply divided Congress. And he faced the filibuster but knew how to push and pull members of Congress into passing his legislation.

[newfie11]

17. +1. nt

[ProSense]

20. You are

"I remember LBJ's time. The Southern Democrats filibustered. They stood on the floor and spoke for hours and hours."

...talking about a handful of filibusters by a few Senators in a Senate where Democrats held a 64 seat majority, climbing to 68 seats, compared to the hundreds by the current Congress.

When President Obama had a Democratic Congress, he was very effective in getting things done, despite Republicans, who never failed to throw up any roadblock they could. In some instances they were able to weakening legislation.

CQ: Obama's Winning Streak On Hill Unprecedented
January 11, 2010

In his first year in office, President Obama did better even than legendary arm-twister Lyndon Johnson in winning congressional votes on issues where he took a position, a Congressional Quarterly study finds.

The new CQ study gives Obama a higher mark than any other president since it began scoring presidential success rates in Congress more than five decades ago. And that was in a year where Obama tackled how to deal with Afghanistan, Iraq, an expanding terrorist threat, the economic crisis and battles over health care.

Unprecedented Success Rate

Obama has been no different from his predecessors in that he's always ready to send a firm message to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue as he "urges members of Congress" to come together and act. All presidents demand specific action by Congress — or at least they ask for it. But when you look at the votes of 2009 in which Obama made his preference clear, his success rate was unprecedented, according to John Cranford of Congressional Quarterly.

"His success was 96.7 percent on all the votes where we said he had a clear position in both the House and the Senate. That's an extraordinary number," Cranford says.

The previous high scores were held by Lyndon Johnson in 1965, with 93 percent, and Dwight Eisenhower, who scored 89 percent in 1953. Cranford notes that George W. Bush's score hit the high 80s in 2001, the year of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. But Obama surpassed them all, Cranford says.



- more -

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122436116

Enacted

Main article: Acts of the 111th United States Congress
January 29, 2009: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–2
February 4, 2009: Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (SCHIP), Pub.L. 111–3
February 17, 2009: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Pub.L. 111–5
March 11, 2009: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub.L. 111–8
March 30, 2009: Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–11
April 21, 2009: Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, Pub.L. 111–13
May 20, 2009: Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–21
May 20, 2009: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–22
May 22, 2009: Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–23
May 22, 2009: Credit CARD Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–24
June 22, 2009: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, as Division A of Pub.L. 111–31
June 24, 2009: Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 including the Car Allowance Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers), Pub.L. 111–32
October 28, 2009: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Pub.L. 111–84
November 6, 2009: Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–92
December 16, 2009: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub.L. 111–117
February 12, 2010: Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, as Title I of Pub.L. 111–139
March 4, 2010: Travel Promotion Act of 2009, as Section 9 of Pub.L. 111–145
March 18, 2010: Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, Pub.L. 111–147
March 23, 2010: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub.L. 111–148
March 30, 2010: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, Pub.L. 111–152
May 5, 2010: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–163
July 1, 2010: Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–195
July 21, 2010: Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub.L. 111–203
July 29, 2010: Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010
August 3, 2010: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–220
August 10, 2010: SPEECH Act, Pub.L. 111–223
September 27, 2010: Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–240
December 8, 2010: Claims Resolution Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–291
December 13, 2010: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–296
December 17, 2010: Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–312, H.R. 4853
December 22, 2010: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–321, H.R. 2965
January 2, 2011: James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–347, H.R. 847
January 4, 2011: Shark Conservation Act, Pub.L. 111–348, H.R. 81
January 4, 2011: Food Safety and Modernization Act, Pub.L. 111–353, H.R. 2751

[JDPriestly]

21. Have you ever studied martial arts?

You win by deflecting your opponent's energy away from you. Obama's mistake is that he allows his political opponents to aim right at him. He does that by befriending them, spending an inordinate amount of time sparring with them directly. He needs to undercut their attacks by shifting the focus from what they want to what people to the left of him want.

The only reason I can figure out that he does not do that is that he actually agrees with those on the right more than he does with those on the left.

Obama could have gotten a Democratic Congress this time if he paid more attention to left-wing Democrats in Congress. He should play them up as his allies.

How many times has he invited Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders or Alan Grayson along with Marcy Captur, Sherrod Brown, Xavier Becerra and the many, many other progressive Democrats to the White House. He should be showing that he is close to Democrats of the right and left in Congress. That is how you help new Democrats from new districts get into Congress.

And don't forget, LBJ's and Roosevelt's congresses included a lot of very conservative Democrats. Some of those conservative Democrats switched sides later on.

Robert Byrd was unusual because he became more liberal as time passed. So you can't compare the Republicans and Democrats in Congress prior to Reagan and Nixon to those of today necessarily.

[uponit7771]

24. LBJ and FDR had enough progressives to pass what they wanted they also had a functioning democracy

...and Obama doesn't

When 1.6 million more dems vote for dem candidates in the house and gop abuse's filibuster in senate then founders rules for governing are not in effect

[JDPriestly]

25. And what has Obama done to encourage a really progressive agenda for the nation.

Propose cuts to Social Security? That does not encourage progressives.

In fact, we progressives are busy now trying to fight our own president on that and a number of other issues.

Here is what I would like to see Obama do now that we are getting ready for the 2014 elections. I would like to see him arrange some personal visits to the ordinary people who have benefited from some of his best legislation and programs -- and invite lots of Democrats, not only his OFA people but all the Democratic Clubs and other volunteers for offices other than the presidency to attend those meetings. He could showcase Democrats running for the House and Senate. He needs to do a lot of these. That way he could show the nation how much better off we are with a Democratic House and Senate.

That would be a smart move and it would throw Republicans off balance. Does Obama have the time? He found it when he was running for president. Of course he could do it now. In fact it would be the best investment of his time he could make because unless he finds a way to change or circumvent the Republicans in Congress (by changing the percentages of them in Congress), he will be wasting the last two years of his term as he is these two years.

[graham4anything]

29. LBJ was able to tell the WallaceDixieDemocrats to go f'themselves & worked WITH regular repbs.

If you take out the debbie downers/sad sams of the democratic party today, President Obama has done a super job.
Remember, the whiners that are SUPPOSEDLY democartic people today (SUPPOSEDLY) always only talk about two things AND IGNORE THE 100S OF GREAT THINGS.

We need to do the same that LBJ did to the Wallace ones. Render them OBSOLETE, and we NEED to work with those on the other side like LBJ was able to do.

Which means MORE unity with the moderates there(and the majority of the republican party are wanting the same thing AND LESS with the very small extremists on both sides.

80-20 as I say.

[Recursion]

18. Good Lord... the Manatos's are everywhere

Apparently that's the grandfather of Mike & Tom Manatos, who are two huge names on K street and the Hill.

[uponit7771]

22. FDR Had a 70+% avg dem CONGRESS and LBJ had a 59% avg dem CONGRESS! 2010 REALLY REALLY Hurt America

[JDPriestly]

26. Obama has 55% of senators if you include Sanders and King, the independents who caucus with

Democrats. Obama has a chance of winning the House in 2014 if he applies himself. He needs to target the seats that Republicans now have in a lot of states. California could be almost entirely blue if he half-tried. He should be able to help Minnesota Democrats unseat Bachmann. There are many, many seats Democrats could take in 2014 with the help of Obama.

If Obama has a Republican Congress at this point, it is because he hasn't really tried to back liberal Democrats who excite voters.

The thing I hear most from disillusioned Americans who don't vote is that they don't like either party because the parties are the same. Obama needs to make it clear why it is important to vote for Democrats. He does that when he is running. He needs to be more, not less, partisan in between times.

Trying to get along with the Republicans, with the dumb conservatives is a total waste of time. Obama needs to come out fighting as a partisan Democrat in 2014. That's the only way he can get disillusioned voters out. It may require him to fire some of his big corporate buddies in his cabinet. And also put a couple of bankers in jail.

The joke about making an admiral walk the plank. I don't normally agree with that philosophy. But right now, it probably would actually work and do more good than just turn Congress blue.

[Art_from_Ark]

34. "... it is because he hasn't really tried to back liberal Democrats who excite voters."

And in at least one case, he actually campaigned AGAINST a liberal Democrat

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=8101

[DevonRex]

36. WTF good does 55% of Senators do? Do you UNDERSTAND the filibuster? JFC.

And he doesn't have the fucking house. Jesus fucking Christ. It's motherfucking MATH. No matter HOW much you want to BELIEVE Obama is Satan, it's still the motherfucking MATH.