Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MineralMan

(146,333 posts)
Thu Apr 23, 2015, 03:55 PM Apr 2015

LBJ and FDR, like President Obama, were wartime Presidents.

I try to remember that from time to time. FDR was a post-depression President, dealing with very difficult economic conditions as well. Both LBJ and FDR did some memorable social justice things, and so has President Obama.

I don't remember FDR. I was born in July of 1945, two weeks before the Hiroshima bomb, which his administration developed. I do remember LBJ, though. He actively prosecuted the Vietnam War. I remember that very well, and remember protesting that war and LBJ, too, over it. President Obama has wound down two Middle East wars, although there is still crap going on in that region, which seems always to be in turmoil.

Different times; different Presidents. All three had to deal with war and social issues. All three did some very good things. I don't remember any Presidents who were paragons of peace and light, frankly, except maybe Jimmy Carter, and he was summarily rejected for a second term.

I try to look at the past clearly and without my rose-colored glasses. Being President is a tough job in the best of times. In worse times, it's a terrible job. I try to remember that.

Thanks are owed to all three Presidents for their service. Truly.

13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

MineralMan

(146,333 posts)
2. Not really. LBJ and Obama's wars were inherited.
Thu Apr 23, 2015, 03:58 PM
Apr 2015

FDR's started on his watch. Vietnam was already underway, albeit on a smaller scale, when LBJ became President. Look up the history.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
3. Yeah, Vietnam dates back further than US involvement.
Thu Apr 23, 2015, 04:08 PM
Apr 2015

Back to the 50s, I believe. Eisenhower had us slightly involved. Kennedy escalated it, and after assassination, LBJ escalated it more.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
4. It was LBJ's choice to involve the U.S. on a scale larger than simply two battalions of military adv
Thu Apr 23, 2015, 04:41 PM
Apr 2015

It was LBJ's choice to involve the U.S. on a scale larger than simply two battalions of military advisors. Kennedy on the other hand, was firmly against the deployment of American combat troops (David Maraniss ,They Marched into Sunlight). Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam in withdrawing 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 to expand, rather than avoid the conflict.

Hence, any inheritance LBJ received was small enough to be negligible, and his own choices were predicated on the advise of McNamara rather than any pre-existing foreign policies of the Kennedy administration.




Fundamentals of History 1301, I would have thought...

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
5. you're comparing wwii to what we have been doing in the ME?
Thu Apr 23, 2015, 04:57 PM
Apr 2015

Wow. And btw fdr passed and implemented the new deal while winning wwii. Lbj passed and implemented the VRA, CAR, Medicare and Medicaid while waging war.

Strange post as usual, mm

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
7. alas, most presidents over the past century have been war time presidents
Thu Apr 23, 2015, 06:09 PM
Apr 2015

We're perpetually at war

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
11. no, I understood your point
Fri Apr 24, 2015, 06:07 AM
Apr 2015

I chose to comment on what occurred to me upon reading your title

MineralMan

(146,333 posts)
12. You missed commenting on my point, though.
Fri Apr 24, 2015, 09:52 AM
Apr 2015

We tend to lionize Democratic Presidents from the past, like LBJ and FDR. We talk about their social and economic views, but ignore the rest, because that's how we want to remember them. At the same time, we criticize our sitting President and rarely praise his social and economic progress, because he's the sitting President.

The Vietnam War was escalated from a small number of advisers to a full-blown war that killed over 50,000 Americans and countless Vietnamese by LBJ. Yes, he also created the Great Society program. If all we remember him for was the Great Society, the comparison with President Obama falls flat. I remember protesting LBJ's war.

WWII was a necessary war, but FDR also presided over the bombing of Dresden and the creation of the nuclear weapons that destroyed two cities in Japan. FDR also imprisoned Japanese Americans during WWII, an act that I believe was indefensible. Yes, he also brought the country out of a depression and initiated efforts to improve the lot of working Americans. He did all of that. But when comparing President Obama to FDR, we never mention the war and the vast destruction FDR presided over.

On the other hand, President Obama has also presided over a couple of wars, which he has successfully wound down during his time in office. Yes, there is still war in the Middle East. He also has presided over a substantial recovery from the economic disaster caused by GWB, worked to create a health care initiative that is enabling medical care for millions who were without it. He helped LGBT Americans to be able to serve openly in our military and is seeing the end of marriage inequality during his second term. He's done many other things we should and will remember after he is out of office.

No President can be all things to all people. Presidents are not Kings. Saddled with a Republican-controlled Congress for most of his term in office, he has still managed to do much to improve social justice and equality. There's still much to be done, but we should give him credit for what he has done.

It's a complex thing to be POTUS. In hindsight, we often remember only what pleases us about former Presidents. When we do comparisons, we really, really need to look at the entire picture, not just what we wish to pick out from past Presidents' records. President Obama will be remembered very well in hindsight. He's done very well, despite areas where he was unable to do what he would have liked.

Replying to a title only is not really a reply to a post. There was much more in that post.

MineralMan

(146,333 posts)
10. Yes, but, see, the Great Society.
Thu Apr 23, 2015, 07:34 PM
Apr 2015

He was a "true progressive," I'm told.

Nobody's perfect. We can point to many good things Obama has done, as well.

We can also point at ugly things other Presidents have done. It's a difficult job, apparently.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»LBJ and FDR, like Preside...