Conquer Club

So I'm supposed to debate in my history class tomorrow that LBJ was a terrible President. It's not what I really believe, but that's not really the point.

Anyway, I'm having trouble finding criticism of him online. Can anyone help? For once, I'd actually like to hear a Nappy-rant, so yeah -- get in here, Napoleon!

All I can find that one might not like him for was the Vietnam War -- pretty much have that covered. Also, links would be good. I need statistics, anything and everything.

Just look for LBJ's biography, then go from there (Nappy should be on tomorrow morning sometime).

The problem is that too many like him on the Internet... even Wikipedia.

I heard LBJ like punching babies.

bump

InkL0sed wrote:So I'm supposed to debate in my history class tomorrow that LBJ was a terrible President. It's not what I really believe, but that's not really the point.
WELCOME TO STUDYING HISTORY LOL I chuckled at that cos thats what its all about -arguing for stuff you dont believe in

Anyway, I'm having trouble finding criticism of him online. Can anyone help? For once, I'd actually like to hear a Nappy-rant, so yeah -- get in here, Napoleon!

All I can find that one might not like him for was the Vietnam War -- pretty much have that covered. Also, links would be good. I need statistics, anything and everything.

The usual "Its not really my period" caveat. And I dunno how advanced your historical prowess goes. But if you dont at the moment, start sticking in the word "caveat" - historians love that sort of guff. ( caveat meaning a qualifying point eg LBJ was really good, APART from the vietnam war )

The problem as you point out, is that i reckon you are right. LBJ normally seems to be lauded for his domestic record, "The Great Society", civil rights reforms, sexual equality etc And condemned for his foreign policy.

From a long term perspective, you can criticise LBj, like Macmillan and Wilson in UK, for sacrificing sustainable long term economic stability for short term prosperity. As Nappy will no doubt argue, a monetarist analysis of LBJ would say thta his MASSIVE spendinbg program only served to inject HIGH inflationary pressures in the US economy, and increasing long term interest rates.
With disastrous consequences for the US in the 1970s.

Personally, i would reject this argument on the grounds that LBJ prioritised the necessity of social reform over the POSSIBLE bad long term consequences.
Basically, i've now realised i know f*ck all about LBJ.
Oh, a minor point - you could compare him unfavourably with G. W. Bush - for all his faults, you can argue thgat at least G. W. secured ONE ally for his war, whereas LBJ was internationally completley isolated in Vietnam. I wouldnt say this made any real difference to the outcome of the war ( a few thousand European troops woludlnt have done enough) but perhaps it would have given LBJ more domestic crdibility and support for his policy.
He was a SHIT diplomat - his loveable, plain speaking bit might have won the Democrats the South (they were the days lol) but served only to piss De Gaulle and co right off!

From a party political viewpoint, You could possibly criticise him for leaving the Dmocrtas in a state of dissaray, and letting in Tricky Dick. Like a medieval monarch, one of the main functions of the party leader is to secure the succession. Should he have resigned earlier? Or concealed his illness and won the election for the Dems (ok, its gone a bit West Wing now!)

But, you know, remember RULE ONE: always attack the premises of the question. If i were you, i would say at the end something like "but evidence seems to suggest that domestically LBj was one of the good presidents." That is partisan of course, but dont be bullied by the question - if you cant find much evidence that he was a bad President, then he probably did quite a good job

You could bribe or bully one of the other debaters into invoking Godwin's Law and comparing LBJ to Hitler, then you would win by default.

Hehe -- thanks suggs, some interesting points there, I'll keep them in mind.

Again, this is prob too vague - but you could argue that maybe LBJ underachieved domestically. Too hesistan on civil rights, still mass poverty, minimum wage not good enough, shit health care system etc

InkL0sed wrote:The problem is that too many like him on the Internet... even Wikipedia.

There's your problem right there. Go to the library, ask the librarian for a book on LBJ's bio, then read the book. It will be more dependable and reliable then wiki has ever been (trust me on this).

So what are the two things LBJ's Presidency is most known for? 1. His pro-civil rights, anti-poverty stance that has been incredibly influential on the Democratic party ever since, and 2. Escalating the Vietnam War.

One can identify a lot of hypocrisy in those two notable aspects of his Presidency, both on the civil rights front, and the poverty front.

How do you think, inkl0sed, the escalation of the Vietnam War might have conflicted with LBJ's domestic social policies?

He also picked up his dog by the ears. So bring that up, and you can get the Humane Society/PETA vote.

LBJ was an incredible congressman, shitty president. Use the term Boondoggle or morass as in "The Great Society was a liberal boondoggle unparalleled for its time" or "LBJ's deepening commitment to the morass that was Vietnam scarred a generation". Basically, imo, LBJ was the father of the baby boomer's greed, self- destruction, and moral relativity that molds almost every aspect of our american way of life today.

Curmudgeonx wrote:He also picked up his dog by the ears. So bring that up, and you can get the Humane Society/PETA vote.

LBJ was an incredible congressman, shitty president. Use the term Boondoggle or morass as in "The Great Society was a liberal boondoggle unparalleled for its time" or "LBJ's deepening commitment to the morass that was Vietnam scarred a generation". Basically, imo, LBJ was the father of the baby boomer's greed, self- destruction, and moral relativity that molds almost every aspect of our american way of life today.

I don't think to many people are that concerned about what PETA thinks, since they have a tendency to throw animal blood over someone enjoying their lunch.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Curmudgeonx wrote:He also picked up his dog by the ears. So bring that up, and you can get the Humane Society/PETA vote.

LBJ was an incredible congressman, shitty president. Use the term Boondoggle or morass as in "The Great Society was a liberal boondoggle unparalleled for its time" or "LBJ's deepening commitment to the morass that was Vietnam scarred a generation". Basically, imo, LBJ was the father of the baby boomer's greed, self- destruction, and moral relativity that molds almost every aspect of our american way of life today.

I don't think to many people are that concerned about what PETA thinks, since they have a tendency to throw animal blood over someone enjoying their lunch.

Really? I thought they used their own so as not to harm any animals.

MeDeFe wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Curmudgeonx wrote:He also picked up his dog by the ears. So bring that up, and you can get the Humane Society/PETA vote.

LBJ was an incredible congressman, shitty president. Use the term Boondoggle or morass as in "The Great Society was a liberal boondoggle unparalleled for its time" or "LBJ's deepening commitment to the morass that was Vietnam scarred a generation". Basically, imo, LBJ was the father of the baby boomer's greed, self- destruction, and moral relativity that molds almost every aspect of our american way of life today.

I don't think to many people are that concerned about what PETA thinks, since they have a tendency to throw animal blood over someone enjoying their lunch.

Really? I thought they used their own so as not to harm any animals.

I don't know where they get the blood, just that they like to throw it on people.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:I don't think to many people are that concerned about what PETA thinks, since they have a tendency to throw animal blood over someone enjoying their lunch.

Really? I thought they used their own so as not to harm any animals.

I don't know where they get the blood, just that they like to throw it on people.

Maybe it's from abortions... like that work of art we talked about a while back.

OK, judging by the internet you can probably just win by insinuating that your opponent is (uninformed/gullible/a communist/un-American) and insisting that your position is preserving (traditional values/basic human rights/the economy). If necessary fall back on demotivational pics and yell "NO U!" a lot. Only use caps lock as a last resort.

InkL0sed wrote:So I'm supposed to debate in my history class tomorrow that LBJ was a terrible President. It's not what I really believe, but that's not really the point.

Anyway, I'm having trouble finding criticism of him online. Can anyone help? For once, I'd actually like to hear a Nappy-rant, so yeah -- get in here, Napoleon!

All I can find that one might not like him for was the Vietnam War -- pretty much have that covered. Also, links would be good. I need statistics, anything and everything.

This probably comes too late to help, but the main criticism I have heard is that he just did not do enough to invesigate the Kennedy assassination (but be prepared to the counter-argument that calming and uniting the nation were more important than finding truth).


Also, he has been accused of both not working fast enough and of doing too much in the civil rights movement.

Finally, the ultimate criticism is that he just did not consolidate his power enough, make enough friends so that Nixon was able to come in and take over.

MeDeFe wrote:Maybe it's from abortions... like that work of art we talked about a while back.

I've always heard it was red paint. Maybe it's red wine?

Geez, I am fucking sorry I mentioned PETA.

My analysis of LBJ being the father of the baby boomer malaise gets no comment; pearls before swine, I tell ya . . .

Neoteny wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Maybe it's from abortions... like that work of art we talked about a while back.

I've always heard it was red paint. Maybe it's red wine?

 
I lost any and all respect I had for PETA when they showed me pictures of sheep that were mangled horribly and tried to claim that was "standard" practice for sheep shearing.     I mean, the farmers I knew would fire a sheerer who even NICKED the sheep, never mind mangling them!

Even in one of their prime targets -- veal calves, most folks don't realize that veal is a by-product of the dairy industry.   Cows need to have calves to give milk.  The heifers (females) are kept, but all but the prime  bull calves are excess ... Particularly since these animals are bred for milk genes and not efficient muscle/meat building, it just doesn't pay to raise them up to steers. And say what you will, but I am not sure that slaughtering them young is really and truly that much worse a fate than slaughering them a year (at most 2) later. ... which is about when most beef stock are killed.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Finally, the ultimate criticism is that he just did not consolidate his power enough, make enough friends so that Nixon was able to come in and take over.

I think that Nixon could "come in and take over" because the Vietnam war was already an unpopular, mangled mess, Johnson was inextricably tied to the war, and so much of the mainline Democratic party was as well. Bobby Kennedy was the only realistic threat to a Republican presidency.

By '67-'68 Johnson felt that his Presidency and his life were failures. He had INTENSE depression which essentially caused him to be medically unable to seek reelection in '68.

That is some interesting stuff meggy. In fact, on a scale of nought to interesting, that's fucking interesting. See I have to do LBJ as well: British history is so dull we do Yank history instead. My (very inexpert) view on him is that he fucked up Viet-Nam, but also was a New Deal type starry-eyed Mr. Fixit with his Great Society twaddle.

Napoleon Ier wrote:That is some interesting stuff meggy. In fact, on a scale of nought to interesting, that's fucking interesting. See I have to do LBJ as well: British history is so dull we do Yank history instead. My (very inexpert) view on him is that he fucked up Viet-Nam, but also was a New Deal type starry-eyed Mr. Fixit with his Great Society twaddle.

Vietnam is essentially a case of: How could it not be fucked up? In the early and mid-60s, the U.S. political elite, as well as most of the general public, was unwilling to concede ANYTHING to Communism, and NOT fighting the Vietnam War would have been a clear concession. Unfortunately for that mindset, it was also an UNWINNABLE war for the U.S., as had become clear by '67, '68 to people like Johnson who actually knew the uncensored truth about what was going on there (the American public did not).

So far as New Deal type... it's funny because in the House of Representatives, Johnson was a great foe of Roosevelt. However, he was all about getting New Deal MONEY to his constituents (he represented a very poor, very rural district in Central Texas). I cannot reconcile if Johnson's career-long concern with poverty (which I think tied in and ties in very reasonably with civil rights as they came to be understood in the '50s and '60s) was a result of his efforts to increase and consolidate his own political power or a genuine sympathetic interest. Regardless, he delivered some INCREDIBLY BEAUTIFUL speeches concerning these issues during the early years of his Presidency that I highly recommend as reading to fellow devotees of political rhetoric.

btownmeggy wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:That is some interesting stuff meggy. In fact, on a scale of nought to interesting, that's fucking interesting. See I have to do LBJ as well: British history is so dull we do Yank history instead. My (very inexpert) view on him is that he fucked up Viet-Nam, but also was a New Deal type starry-eyed Mr. Fixit with his Great Society twaddle.

Vietnam is essentially a case of: How could it not be fucked up? In the early and mid-60s, the U.S. political elite, as well as most of the general public, was unwilling to concede ANYTHING to Communism, and NOT fighting the Vietnam War would have been a clear concession. Unfortunately for that mindset, it was also an UNWINNABLE war for the U.S., as had become clear by '67, '68 to people like Johnson who actually knew the uncensored truth about what was going on there (the American public did not).

So far as New Deal type... it's funny because in the House of Representatives, Johnson was a great foe of Roosevelt. However, he was all about getting New Deal MONEY to his constituents (he represented a very poor, very rural district in Central Texas). I cannot reconcile if Johnson's career-long concern with poverty (which I think tied in and ties in very reasonably with civil rights as they came to be understood in the '50s and '60s) was a result of his efforts to increase and consolidate his own political power or a genuine sympathetic interest. Regardless, he delivered some INCREDIBLY BEAUTIFUL speeches concerning these issues during the early years of his Presidency that I highly recommend as reading to fellow devotees of political rhetoric.

UNWINNABLE? Except the US Miliary had delivered the final coup de grâce and exterminated the Viet-Cong in their last ditch offensive by 1968, and forced Hanoi to sue for peace by 1973, effetively winning the war...

So far as the New Deal stuff goes, clearly you're the expert (or you've been doing some impressive wiki-trawling, but either way, I'm being taught in depth about "Teddy Roosevelt's" New Deal in serious depth at school, so...) but I did mean more in his general attitude towards socio-economic policy, as epitomized by his "Great Society".