Why Comparisons Between L.B.J. and Obama Can Mislead

[struggle4progress]

Brendan Nyhan
MAY 22, 2014

... Advocates ... suggest that Obama could win the public over by advocating a more assertive brand of liberalism. But the success of Johnson’s “Great Society” agenda can be seen as a reflection of public opinion, not a result of his speeches or those made by his predecessor ... L.B.J. came to office at a time when the public was already demanding liberal government ...

Mr. Obama’s critics also often fault him for failing to twist arms in Congress as effectively as Johnson ... In reality, Johnson’s historic legislative accomplishments were enabled by enormous Democratic majorities in Congress, especially after the 1964 election. When those majorities diminished, so too did his influence ...

... Beyond the changes in how politics works over the last 50 years, the circumstances were never as favorable for the current president, who took office with more modest demand for a liberal agenda, smaller Congressional majorities and a far more unified opposition party. Unsurprisingly, those constraints breed frustration among Obama supporters and puzzlement among observers who wonder why he can’t do what L.B.J. did. At some point, however, they will come to realize that Obama can’t change public opinion or push bills through Congress by sheer force of will – and neither could Johnson.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/upshot/why-comparisons-between-lbj-and-obama-can-mislead.html

[BlueCaliDem]

1. People who understand the political dynamics of 1964

(let's not forget the goodwill of the American people after JFK's assassination - which played a HUGE role in LBJ getting both Democrats and Republicans to do as he wanted) understand why President Obama can never be an LBJ or FDR.

Also, both renowned Democratic presidents were White and they both had huge majorities in Congress - something this president isn't and has never had.

Those who want President Obama and this country to succeed, know and understand the limitations he's up against.

Those who don't want him (and inadvertently this country) to succeed, continue to ignore those realities and continue to excoriate him because, well, they don't harbor goodwill toward him even if they CLAIM they do on message boards.

Let's also not forget that during the presidencies of both FDR and LBJ, we still had an honest Fourth Estate. Today, we have incorporated propaganda outlets posing as (thanks to Reagan who got the ball rolling). And that makes ALL the difference.

[Spider Jerusalem]

2. LBJ may have had a huge Democratic majority...

but a significant portion of that majority were Southern segregationists who were bitterly opposed to most of his legislative agenda, including the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. He wouldn't have gotten the Civil Rights Act passed if not for shaming moderate Republicans into voting for it by appealing to their history as the "party of Lincoln".

[BlueCaliDem]

3. He also had a TRUE fourth estate backing him. President Obama never did.

And, I'll repeat, it makes ALL the difference.

So in all truth and honesty, President Obama not only had tiny majorities (with lots of Southern conservative Democrats that easily tilted in favor of Republicans) in the Senate, but he had a hostile U.S. media that continued to give him the least positive coverage (as the Pew Research Center has concluded) than the abundance of positive news coverage they gave Republicans and the Koch-funded Teabaggers. This would have never happened in LBJ's or FDR's time.

Here is a truism to remember in today's politics: He who holds the bullhorn, gets heard.

And the GOP's corporate masters hold the nation's mega-bullhorn.

So I stand by my statements.

[struggle4progress]

4. The figures show the bill had broad bipartisan support but almost unanimous regional opposition

One can try a partisan analysis but it doesn't teach one much. The regional figures, however, are striking

In the Senate, Democrats from the non-confederate states gave LBJ 45 votes, so he only needed to scrape up six more votes: one came from Yarborough (D-TX) and Republicans from the non-confederate states provided another 27. In the House, Democrats from the non-confederate states gave LBJ 145 votes, so he needed to scrape up 73 more votes: Democrats from the confederate states gave him seven, and Republicans from the non-confederate states provided another 138

In the House and Senate combined, confederate state Democrats opposed the bill 107-8 and confederate state Republicans opposed the bill 11-0, while non-confederate state Democrats supported the bill 190-10 and non-confederate state Republicans supported the bill 165-29

Using these figures, we see that about 93% of confederate Democrats and 100% of confederate Republicans opposed the bill, with about 94% of the confederate total in opposition. In the non-confederate states as well, Republicans were more likely to oppose the bill than Democrats: 5% of non-confederate Democrats opposed the bill, but about 13% of non-confederate Republicans opposed it

[Jamaal510]

5. K&R

[Number23]

6. So glad the Foamers are too busy howling in protection of Greenwald to participate in this thread

Really interesting article and exchange.

[baldguy]

7. Most will take their queue from the rabid RW nutcases they emulate

and discount the article because it's in the New York Times.