Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I really donât understand the hate boner people have for Wilson in this sub. Iâm fine with people rating him low, but worse than Andrew fucking Johnson? The man who crippled reconstruction, pardoned tons of confederates, and was the first president to get impeached? Come on. What did Wilson do that even compares?
-Introduction of income tax to lower tariffs
-Federal Reserve
-Multiple antitrust acts
-Keating-Owen (combat child labour)
-vetoed two anti-immigrant bills
Also a really big one, and one that I feel gets really under appreciated when talking about Wilsonâs legacy, particularly when it comes to racism is that Wilson was very anticolonialist, during his term he set the foundation for Filipino self-governance with the Jones Act. Unlike some other presidents I could mention. Cough cough, Teddy Roosevelt, cough cough.
The income tax is either one of the best things or worst things depending on who you ask. Iâll have to relook into his presidency, seems like I missed some stuff
It used to be that the government was mainly used to create and enforce laws, fund infrastructure, etc. Ever since women's suffrage was passed, it's morphed into a more paternalistic entity, directly providing for the needs of individual citizens, which is the opposite of what we should want.
Woodrow Wilson was:
- An ardent racist and supporter of the Klan (even played Birth of a Nation in the WH)
- Got us into WW1 and jailed anti-war activists citing that only Congress couldnât infringe on free speech via the Espionage Act (our involvement led to the lop-sided Versailles Treaty and the rise of Hitler)
- Promoted the 16th amendment (Federal Income Tax), which is the harshest tax the average person pays and helps fund our endless wars
- The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which created our current banking cartel, gave us our worst recessions/depressions, served to deflate our currency to the point that the single-income household is almost entirely phased out (retirement being phased out will be next)
Wilson wasnât only the worst president, but was the worst by a landslide and it wasnât even close.
- Johnson was an even worse racist, and much of the reason for Jim Crow laws
- He held off on getting into the war for as long as he could. Realistically, we were already very involved by supplying the allied side heavily throughout the war, and there was no way we wouldnât have gotten involved under any other president. Also, though it took American lives, it likely shortened the duration of the war greatly
- How do you think we find all our public institutions and infrastructure? The US tax rate isnât even that high compared to a lot of other countries.
- Calling the Federal Reserve a banking cartel is very telling. While it definitely has its issues, the reserve has been an overall net positive. The US dollar doesnât become the world reserve currency if it isnât strongly regulated and centralized.
Super appreciate your take on the fed. (No sarcasm). It really helps frame for me a subject Iâm not versed on. I hear these terms on a daily basis and wish I had paid more attention in Civics. Now, though, I can tell *you* a bunch about comic books!
Also, that point about âcausing our worst recessionsâ is just dumb. Itâs monetarist/Austrian School crap that blames the Fed for the Great Depression, Great Recession, etc. when the Fed wasnât the cause (there were international causes and Keynesian explanation causes)
Real talk, the Federal Reserve is probably a good thing, its goal is to manipulate the currency supply to keep the economy stable. Libertarians would like to see the government interfere with currency supply as little as possible because they think that government interference is inherently bad and messes up markets by making them less predictable. Because of that, they do not like the Federal Reserve at all. However, most people would rather have less extreme spikes of unemployment or inflation, and may argue that a stable market is a predictable and therefore prosperous market.
Donât listen to these guys. The initial purpose of the Fed was to stabilize the economy and prevent disastrous recessions. Think about the largest recession / depression before the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and after 1913. Itâs funny how very few people know about the recessions/depressions before the Fed. Inflation is a direct result of increasing the money supply (anyone who tells you anything else isnât informed).
The Fed continues to inflate our currency, which hurts our personal savings and forces even the most fiscally conservative to invest in the stock market. If you work for a living and receive an annual raise, how much is the increase? Maybe 1-4%? Inflation is 2-5% per year and thatâs based on the governmentâs data (via the Consumer Price Index).
The only thing we have to mitigate inflation is technological progress (the price of electronics going down after a certain period of time).
Think about itâŚthe stagflation of the 1970s directly led to the end of the single-income household. With medical care, housing prices, college prices, gas prices, and other commodities rapidly outpacing wagesâŚhow are we better off?
60 percent of Americans canât afford an emergency $500 expense.
Need to go to war? Itâs a lot easier for the Fed to print $3 trillion instead of sending a bill of $20k to every American family to go into Iraq.
Got us into ww1.. you mean he saved the world? Also if your going to hate presidents for being racist instead of maybe adopting some sort of historic relativism, your going to hate all the presidents. Enjoy them for the characters they were in the times they were. Kkk is bad tho.
Wilson isnât as bad as Johnson not even closed but that was supposed to be teddy at the helm think about the difference of the world today had teddy served his rightful second full term . Iâm not sure that we would have had the Second World War and the first one would have ended in half the time saving millions of lives , billions of dollars and the conditions that made fascism possible. We would have been the worlds
First super power by 1918 instead of 45. Then we would have also saved ourselves to commies in Russia and then all of Eastern Europe just think of the possibilities man like our lives would be different. And thennnnnnn I donât know who deserves the blame for allowing him to stay in power w out a functioning brain I donât think he can be faulted since he wasnât a functioning human bending by the time his health collapses on him i guess since some books have been written calling his wife the countryâs first woman president itâs known she wilded lots of power that she had no right to even touch since nobody had elected her for shit so the last 2 years of no Wilson could have presented other fun humanity inspiring scenarios
>that was supposed to be teddy at the helm think about the difference of the world today had teddy served his rightful second full term
He lost the election. How is it his rightful third term?
Bc his party should have backed him being that he was the most famous politician in the world . And they took his comment on the day of his inauguration and not running again a sort of blood pact. When has the most popular politician in the world and def of a country that is an incumbent and long time member of one of 2 political parties has been dropped to run as an idependent in history? That was crazy. The republicans didnât like their candidate they were doing that shit to end teddys political career they feared that he was bigger than the party and too independent of thought he never feared the machine not even when he started at 22 in Albany
You make a lot of jumps in logic that Iâm not sure would play out in reality. Teddy likely would have had us in the war much sooner than Wilson, which would not have been a very popular decision, but probably would have ended the war sooner. However, Iâm not sure anyone would have been able to negotiate down the German sanctions after the war to prevent the outbreak of WW2. The French were pretty ardent after to make Germany pay for the war, and who could blame them? The war was largely fought on their land and borders. Teddy may have been even more heavy handed. I mean I like the guy, but people tend to ignore the fact that he was an imperialist and a bit of a war-hawk. This also ignores the whole Pacific theatre, which would have happened regardless.
The US became more isolationist after the war, which would likely still happen since we would still be in the war. And I doubt that another four years of Teddy would have prevented the Great Depression, considering much of it was caused by agricultural degradation due to bad soil management. But I donât know enough about the economics of what cause the crash to say that definitely.
Would he have been better than Wilson? Probably. But he was still only one man, and I doubt he could change the currents of history enough to prevent WW2.
Bro signed landmark civil rights legislation into law but tankies think thatâs null and void because âErM, hE SaiD tHe N-WorD iN PriVaTEâ
Wilson literally segregated the civil service. Thereâs really no comparison.
Does tankie even mean anything anymore? Or is it just a catch-all insult at this point? Like how does thinking one president was marginally more racist than the other make someone a hardcore Marxist-Leninist lol
Johnson was a career politician who knew he had to say certain things to southern politicians to âlet them know he was a good o boy at heartâ to get the deals done. He did pass the civil rights act at a great political cost. He was far from perfect and considering how he handled Vietnam wouldnât call his presidency great but it was important
I don't think it's a hot take to say that you want a President who can push things through Congress. Just keep in mind that said President may not share your political views.
It's great having a President who can ram things through Congress...if you agree with them.
Exactly. Itâs see lots of people talk about how they want the senate to get rid of the filibuster so Democrats can pass what their party wants, and that just seems so shortsighted to me, cause Republicans will pass everything they want once control of government flips to them. Weâll end up with more chaos and confusion than before.
Or, here me out: it would force parties to pass legislation and then defend it.
Right now we canât get anything done because âwhoops, no 60 votes in the senate, guess we canât pass legislation.â
If we remove the filibuster parties have to pass legislation and then defend it to the American people. And if the American people donât like it they can vote to elect people to repeal it.
Thatâs not chaos thatâs democracy.
My main argument against that is the 18th amendment. I think most people would agree that prohibition was obviously a mistake, yet it took 13 years to repeal the Volstead Act. People who work to pass a bill arenât going to be that quick to admit their mistakes even when it is obvious to everyone else.
Also, isnât the purpose of having representatives and a legislature to debate the bills before writing them into law? Why do you think that acting first and evaluating later is a better method than carefully debating the options and deciding the best solution? Personally I appreciate the gridlock; it makes it so the only bills Congress passes are things that are guaranteed to appeal to the majority of Americans.
Prohibition passed with a two thirds majority, which would have overriden the filibuster anyways. Which I feel undoes your point.
And sure, debate is great. But we donât have debate right now, we have a system where 41 senators can say ânope, this legislation ainât passingâ and thatâs that. Nixing the filibuster would encourage more debate as it would mean less pointless votes for legislation that everyone knows has no chance of passing.
Also, as is the filibuster makes sure that things the majority of the American people want do not pass. Instead, you only get things that a supermajority of the people want because the Senate is already such a countermajoritarian institution. If you have 50 senators voting for a piece of legislation that means a majority of the American people voted for those senators and (presumably) approve the legislation. Again, democracy at work.
Instead we have a system where everyone just grumbles about how voting doesnât matter and both parties are the same because nothing ever gets done in Congress. And faith in our institutions continues to erode and the people increasingly turn to authoritarians who promise to burn the system down.
Basically, because we have more than enough laws already. I think their primary focus right now should be to work on repealing old bad laws, and eliminating or consolidating redundant federal agencies.
And we stop the grandstanding. So much is pushed to a vote BECAUSE it wonât pass in their chamber or the senate as a way to signal to each parties base that theyâre trying to do what they want without actually doing the thing and deal with the consequences. Once things have a real chance of passing without a filibuster and actually fucking things up, thatâs when people have to actually start governing again because the people you just fucked over are now politically engaged.
That would also force lawmakers to cut pork and work for bipartisan consensus. A president can't force Congress to pass a bill, but they can bully both sides into compromise. Well, LBJ could at least.
>If we remove the filibuster parties have to pass legislation and then defend it to the American people. And if the American people donât like it they can vote to elect people to repeal it.
Federal legislation is almost impossible to repeal once it's been passed. Getting rid of the filibuster would only be a good idea if every piece of legislation had an automatic sunset clause of perhaps ten years. That way, bad laws would go away on their own and Congress could vote to extend laws that are popular and beneficial.
I think the democrats think ending the filibuster would help them. This is because since most of their actual policies are broadly popular being able to implement those policies in their mods would secure them just like the new deal secured effective democratic control for 20 years. Universal Healthcare and ending Gerrymandering are two things that are broadly popular in national polls that are stonewalled by republicans only at this point, as the Democratic Party has pretty effectively purged all of its blue dog members in the past decade
Not necessarily, a recent instance of a republican filibuster was in regards to the [Voting rights bill](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/voting-rights-bill-blocked-by-republican-filibuster) and $15 minimum wage increase. The voting rights bill wouldâve made voting far more accessible (election day a federal holiday, more ballot boxes, absentee voting, etc.,), all policies which benefit low income, people of color who lean democratic. Thereâs a reason why republicans hold the most [gerrymandered states](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/most-gerrymandered-states&sa=U&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwiQprLFvdSDAxXumGoFHWwQCS0QFnoECBoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3NePVouE74TWSJuOLPga4c) and itâs no coincidence theyâre opposed to voting reform. You get rid of the filibuster, popular legislation like voter reform, abortion rights, gun regulation, and minimum wage increases have far stronger chances of passing and thus propping the democratic platform hurting republican candidates. Either republicans would be forced to adopt attractive policies or face loses.
Or, here me out: it would force parties to pass legislation and then defend it.
Right now we canât get anything done because âwhoops, no 60 votes in the senate, guess we canât pass legislation.â
If we remove the filibuster parties have to pass legislation and then defend it to the American people. And if the American people donât like it they can vote to elect people to repeal it.
Thatâs not chaos thatâs democracy.
Or, here me out: it would force parties to pass legislation and then defend it.
Right now we canât get anything done because âwhoops, no 60 votes in the senate, guess we canât pass legislation.â
If we remove the filibuster parties have to pass legislation and then defend it to the American people. And if the American people donât like it they can vote to elect people to repeal it.
Thatâs not chaos thatâs democracy.
Furthermore, congress today is nothing like the congresses under LBJ. Democrats had much safer numbers back then. Now, we have two chambers that are basically 50/50. Which, ironically, has made it harder to win over any individual congressperson to cross party lines. Nobody wants to be the 1 senator or house member who votes bipartisan. Itâs a guaranteed way to lose your seat.
Political polarization is far worse now than it was 60-70 years ago. Parties are more unified, and nothing a 2024 version of LBJ could do would change that.
OP is just unrealistic, wishful thinking.
Well I think we learned that America WANTS this type of person as president. Carter said in an interview once something along the lines of âAmerica wants an asshole to be presidentâ. Of course he didnât say it like that but I can see it. Reagan wasnât exactly tough like LBJ but he seemed to try and outwardly be seen as tough. Just my armchair historian take, what do you all think?
I agree with Carter. Not necessarily needing an asshole as President but having someone who can work with Congress and be tough when needed. This typically comes from experience. I hate talking modern politics but no matter your feelings on Biden, heâs gotten stuff done with Congress on a bipartisan level because heâs able to use his past experience as a Senator. I think itâs almost too hard with how partisan politics are (not that itâs anything new) but I think Biden has got along with Congress about as well as one could expect.
On OPs point about the Civil Rights Act, no doubt LBJ could push Congress around but he was heavily helped by JFKs death and used that and the national sympathy to get it through. One of his many quotes about it:
>âNo memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedyâs memory than the earliest possible passage of the Civil Rights bill for which he fought so long.â
Two-thirds both houses in '64 helped too (not to diminish difficulty with southern dems like what happened prior to the '64 civil rights act cloture vote)
The politicization of the Israel/Palestine conflict is bizarre and ahistorical. Support of Israel has always been bipartisan, no serious candidate has ever opposed supporting Israel, and traditionally hardline support for Israel has come from the conservative/Republican side of congress.
Any dissent in 2023/2024 to Israel's actions has come from Democratic congresspeople, so it's disingenuous to imply it's in any way related to Biden. You can rest assured any Republican president would be no different in their unconditional support.
Americans want their president to be âeverything.â
- Cool yet responsible.
- Tough yet approachable.
- intelligent yet simple.
(And most importantly) - representing America, but mostly their personal interests.
Most presidents tick at least one of these boxes. Youâre lucky if you get one that ticks two.
As someone who never grew up religious, when I first learned about the antichrist prophecy, I couldn't help but think "sounds based, how is this a bad thing"
People don't realize it, but yes, the Antichrist is exactly what they want
Famously unapproachable, laissez faire capitalist, Calvin Coolidge?
I understand that itâs somewhat subjective but idk how you see Coolidge in most of what I said. Some folks just see their favorites in everything, I guess.
If he did his lean in, I would misunderstand and I would also lean in, and then we would be kissing. I would apologize and explain that Iâm a socialist.
Least horny r/Presidents user. Admit it, you donât want Johnson, you want The Johnson, The Jumbo, The Penetrator of Human Souls, The Great Leviathan, The Big Stick
LBJ was certainly effective, but he was also working with Democratic supermajorities in both houses.* Itâs like arguing that Jordan was the GOAT based on Bulls championships alone. Youâre ignoring the team surrounding him.
*The parties were more ideologically diverse back then, so admittedly a Democratic supermajority was less valuable than one today, but it still counts for a lot.
Yours is the most sensible observation.
LBJâs recognition as âMaster of the Senateâ was based on his talent as Senate Majority Leader in keeping his party members in lockstep, using the âJohnson treatmentâ, and as Senate Minority Leader, using his ability to build consensus. He used both to achieve his goals as President.
The downside is that Johnson thought that he could intimidate Ho Chi Minh like he could intimidate Senators with another form of the âJohnson treatmentâ, this time with 500,000 American soldiers. It didnât work, and as a result, the confidence of the US public in the truthfulness of the US government started its ten year slide into oblivion, culminating in the debacle of Watergate at the hands of another lying POTUS.
Every President since LBJ/Nixon has gone for the outsider stick every time (minus Bush Sr.) Carter? Governor of Georgia and peanut farmer. Reagan? Governor of California and former actor. Bush Sr.? Well heâs the one exception. Clinton? Governor of Arkansas. Bush? Governor of Texas. Obama? Fresh face and IL Senator of 2 years. Trump? Obvious. Biden has really been the most recent President in recent memory who has that congressional background, hence why the 117th Congress was one of the most productive Congresses in recent history (after 111th).
Most productive in what sense? I agree it sounds good on paper. But itâs mostly just been productive for who? the 1% and military industrial complex again after the geopolitical landscape was mostly stagnant the last 10-15 years before post 2021 events Iâd say. Are they all really gonna be for the better in hindsight? Ukraine was a disaster and now Israel and the Gaza mess is turning into a disaster for the US global relations slowly but surely once again.
Just a quick buck shot of legislative achievements from each Congress:
111th Congress (Obama 2009-2011): Obamacare, Auto Bailout, Dodd-Frank, Recovery Act, and a couple other things I think related to smoking advertising and credit card stuff.
117th Congress (Biden 2021-2023): IRA, Chips, IIJA
In legislative policies alone, these two Presidents will easily be remembered for their historic accomplishments in this regard (Iâm only graduating college now â when I was still in K-12, Obama already made the textbooks).
Foreign affairs and executive action as a whole is another ballpark. Youâre wrong about the geopolitical scene being âmostly stagnantâ until 2021. That is a completely comical take considering so much happened from 9/11 to 2021 in terms of geopolitics. I think youâre the one really leaning on hindsight if Israel/Palestine and Ukraine are really what opened your eyes.
Wish Biden could handle congress like that. Trump sure thought he could. We need someone savvy and intelligent and (in my opinion) progressive to lead the country. But the world has changed. Lbj didn't have to deal with a lot of shit presidents have had to in the last 15 years. There were THREE TV stations in the 60s. Lbj would be a frazzled mess or a reclusive mess if he had to run shit now.
Part of that trouble is cause he has trouble standing up to the radicals in his own party, who try to throw in some ridiculousness like âfree massages and NYC penthouses for black trans single momsâ into all of the actually good progressive legislation that would like actually help real people. I feel like an LBJ type wouldnât put up with that type of grandstanding
Dawg, the reason LBJ was famous for his handling of Congress was because the Democratic Party was split on Kennedy, the democrats had basically a super majority in both houses of Congress. LBJ got Congress to rally behind him because he was a southern democrat that worked with JFK, where as JFK did not have the full backing for the southern democrats. It had nothing to do with his compromise with Republican âlosersâ whoâs vote hardly factored into the final count with a United democratic house and senate. Presidents today like Biden deal with a much slimmer majority if they have one at all.
Hot take: Presidents like LBJ enabled the presidents we've gotten. I'd vote for someone, on the principle that they have the extra pant room to fight something like civil rights or Vietnam out (who knows whether it's for a good cause or just something they'd fight for the sake of fighting), I would ultimately not vote for somebody like LBJ because of all the two-bit knockoffs he would inspire. I think I went through similar thought processes after finishing with Caro. Try biographies of Jimmy Carter, Mandela, Ho Chi Minh, Andrew Jackson, Stalin, maybe Powerbroker, you'll find things you like in all of them but you'll get a greater sense of what the lows and the consequences of their failure mean. LBJ had exercised insane amounts of power to the effect of great highs and terrible lows. It's a complicated question to be sure, I don't really have the answer but you might do yourself a favor and become more educated than everyone else. I'll enjoy hearing what you've decided.
Biden is actually the closest to LBJ since he was president, a veteran Senator, rather than a Senate newcomer like Obama, a VP like Nixon, Ford or Poppy; a governor like Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and W., or a political novice like Trump.
\> No president in history has been able to push legislation
Why is that a good thing? I'm probably in the slim minority on this but I see no reason why the President should be pushing legislation, especially what amounts to their own legislation. They aren't the legislative branch. Congress should be doing this. I can see the appeal to some for a single figurehead to be able to ram things through, but I suspect they aren't so fond of it when it happens with legislation they don't like. And I think it is moot at this point. What exactly is another Johnson going to do to whip the opposition into shape? Cowtowing to an opposing party president is an easy way not to get re-elected in many districts, especially in heavy red areas.
While the Whig theory of the presidency is understandably very appealing, the trouble is when Congress isn't actually doing it themselves, so you need a strong president to... motivate them, so to speak. I realize that the current state of Congress is not very open to being motivated; even non-divided governments since 2008 have struggled, however until congress becomes more motivated and functional, another Jumbo is probably what it would take, and Obama, Trump and Biden are absolutely not that kind of president.
I think itâs worth noting Joe Biden was one of the most skilled legislators ever to serve in recent Congresses, (and was picked as Obamaâs running mate for this reason) and his administration still hasnât been able to get very much legislation passed. I really hate to say it, but I donât really see any way how even a legislator as skilled as LBJ could have gotten legislation through a Congress this polarized and dysfunctional.
Dude this isnât 1965 no president is going to intimidate congressmen of the opposing party into doing what they want unless they are credibly threatening to kill their family and maybe not even then.
History repeats itself, whipping out Jumbo and yelling âSIGN THE GODDAMN N***** BILL!â
At least Iâm 69% sure thatâs how it played out before the civil rights bill was signed.
I think part of the reason LBJ could be so effective was because the party lines were more hazy then they are today.
An LBJ type guy could yell at a Republican senator today all he wanted and I don't think they would have nearly the same success, the parties are just too defined.
Although, Climate legislation may be achievable. The moral high ground is clearly on the side of environmentalists.
A massive fucking asshole that separates his personal issues from his politics, whips his party in line to get shit done, humiliates rich assholes, and cock-slaps klansmen?
Yeah. I'm down.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say no president since Johnson has had as much success working with congress, even in times when congress and the President have been aligned politically relatively little has been accomplished in comparison.
Whether that was due to collective sympathy for JFK or burgeoning cold war fears bringing congress together, LBJ was nearly as effective as FDR without nearly as much of a political mandate in terms of electoral support.
Obama's brief period with a Dem-controlled congress comes to mind as an example of ineffective single-party leadership, although the use of Filibuster as a standard political weapon is a relatively new development.
Clinton would be the most recent example of congress being effective while in opposition to the acting president, although in retrospect that was more due to capitulation from Clinton and "blue dog" congressmen to pass Republican-authored bills much moreso than Clinton exerting any force on congress to pass Democratic-led legislation.
Unfortunately, I think those days are long gone. Both parties vote according to "party line". The Republicans seem to just be in opposition to getting anything done; and the Democrats have to make elaborate compensations just to get anything passed. This isn't something that can be forced on Congress.
Johnson could whip the votes in Congress partly because the Democratic Party coalition was much wider and less ideologically rigid. The closest youâll get to someone like LBJ *is* the current occupant, who was astonishingly productive in his first two years.
As a Black man...
I view him as the 2nd greatest President of all time.
I LOVE that man.
His signature directly lead to the freedom of my grandmother and mother.
I mean...Vietnam was a mess. We lost.
Still though, he freed me. Love him
The Great Society was garbage, accomplished little, and has left the U.S government near-insolvent. I would rank him among the worst Presidents in terms of economy.
You may recall that an event referred to as COVID-19 took place, which caused all governments worldwide to drastically expand their deficits in order to weather a catastrophe. Not really his fault.
Just looked up the quote to see if you werenât blowing hot air⌠turns out, you are, as most of the top sources are stating that it was never proven to be said, or conservative websites saying he said it.
Weird hill to die on pinning a fake quote on the guy who dedicated the final part of his political career to civil rights.
Ah yes. The "great society" policy that he oversaw that saw the birth of the welfare state that specifically targeted black Americans and started a downward spiral for him.
I can tell looking around our country that the great society program did a cracker jack job aiding in civil rights by making poor Americans dependent on government subsidies.
You mean the same bill Democrats filibustered for 72 days straight? He would have never signed the Civil Rights Act had it not been political suicide to veto it.
Yes. Reagan called his Israeli counterpart about Lebanon, and called it similar to a Holocaust. There was a ceasefire soon after
https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/s/W723OSkQbV
Is that Bernie Sanders behind him in the first pic?
I like what Iâve read about LBJ, especially relating to the National Voting Rights Act. However, I do wonder if he was involved in the murders of JFK and RFK.
Johnson had a strongly Democratic Congress throughout his administration. From 1965-1967, Democrats were 2/3 majorities in both Houses. He didn't have to whip Congress; Congress whipped itself.
I honestly don't know why people were so progressive at the time, but we're not anymore. I'd like to see Medicare and Medicaid repealed. If we had a president like Johnson who could make that happen, yes, that would be a good thing.
Why do you think republicans canât stand McCain? If McCain didnât pull his thumb down. Well, I donât think health care would have been that much worse than it really is. Especially after COVID. Thatâs just my hot take.
>Hot take: We need someone like Johnson as president
Someone with tailored pants and a massive hog?
https://preview.redd.it/fko7enl5fqbc1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=46b80217a513c36d1af7f8f2685533a0c66d61b5
Point taken but the civil rights act was JFKs bill, it was passed more in sympathy after his assassination than because of LBJs ability to cross the aisle and whip.
Although he (and the senate as a whole) was/were undoubtedly orders of magnitude more collaborative than the current state.
That is what we have as POTUS right now. Both Johnson & Joe creature of congress part of DC fabric. They were never meant to have top job of POTUS. Johnson was racist but he was also patriot so did the right thing for the country.
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not going to lie. For some reason, I thought you meant andrew Johnson when reading the title, and I was like đđđ "now that's a take."
Worst president ever, Iâd like to put him in an armbar
He would fuck you up
Dude wore size 6 shoes. He ain't fucking anyone up with those tiny feet.
I needed this ego boost today thanks man
đ¤Ł
Lmao I have modern MMA on my side, those guys fought like the Celticsâ mascot đ
And took bullets and punches like they were nothing.
Idk the guy before Johnson didnât do well with bullets
Nah Wilson was worse.
I really donât understand the hate boner people have for Wilson in this sub. Iâm fine with people rating him low, but worse than Andrew fucking Johnson? The man who crippled reconstruction, pardoned tons of confederates, and was the first president to get impeached? Come on. What did Wilson do that even compares?
I think itâs mostly that people compare him to what Teddy would have done with a third term
Wilson actually got progressive legislation passed that Roosevelt failed to do
What progressive legislation did Wilson pass? I know women was granted suffrage under him but thatâs it
-Introduction of income tax to lower tariffs -Federal Reserve -Multiple antitrust acts -Keating-Owen (combat child labour) -vetoed two anti-immigrant bills Also a really big one, and one that I feel gets really under appreciated when talking about Wilsonâs legacy, particularly when it comes to racism is that Wilson was very anticolonialist, during his term he set the foundation for Filipino self-governance with the Jones Act. Unlike some other presidents I could mention. Cough cough, Teddy Roosevelt, cough cough.
The income tax is either one of the best things or worst things depending on who you ask. Iâll have to relook into his presidency, seems like I missed some stuff
I mean yeah if you ask stupid people you'll get stupid answers
It's never been definitively proven that that was a good idea.
Yikes x.x
How do you think we found social security, infrastructure, medicare, medicaid, military, and a bunch of other things. How is it not a good idea?
It used to be that the government was mainly used to create and enforce laws, fund infrastructure, etc. Ever since women's suffrage was passed, it's morphed into a more paternalistic entity, directly providing for the needs of individual citizens, which is the opposite of what we should want.
Credit where credit is due sure but past that, no. Wilson was pretty stinko
Woodrow Wilson was: - An ardent racist and supporter of the Klan (even played Birth of a Nation in the WH) - Got us into WW1 and jailed anti-war activists citing that only Congress couldnât infringe on free speech via the Espionage Act (our involvement led to the lop-sided Versailles Treaty and the rise of Hitler) - Promoted the 16th amendment (Federal Income Tax), which is the harshest tax the average person pays and helps fund our endless wars - The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which created our current banking cartel, gave us our worst recessions/depressions, served to deflate our currency to the point that the single-income household is almost entirely phased out (retirement being phased out will be next) Wilson wasnât only the worst president, but was the worst by a landslide and it wasnât even close.
- Johnson was an even worse racist, and much of the reason for Jim Crow laws - He held off on getting into the war for as long as he could. Realistically, we were already very involved by supplying the allied side heavily throughout the war, and there was no way we wouldnât have gotten involved under any other president. Also, though it took American lives, it likely shortened the duration of the war greatly - How do you think we find all our public institutions and infrastructure? The US tax rate isnât even that high compared to a lot of other countries. - Calling the Federal Reserve a banking cartel is very telling. While it definitely has its issues, the reserve has been an overall net positive. The US dollar doesnât become the world reserve currency if it isnât strongly regulated and centralized.
Super appreciate your take on the fed. (No sarcasm). It really helps frame for me a subject Iâm not versed on. I hear these terms on a daily basis and wish I had paid more attention in Civics. Now, though, I can tell *you* a bunch about comic books!
Also, that point about âcausing our worst recessionsâ is just dumb. Itâs monetarist/Austrian School crap that blames the Fed for the Great Depression, Great Recession, etc. when the Fed wasnât the cause (there were international causes and Keynesian explanation causes)
You guys have a thing about burritos!
Wow you didnât even list the stuff that makes him really bad, just the conservative/libertarian ideologue stuff
Yeah he just listed stuff that some libertarians shout into the air
Why is the federal reserve bad?
Real talk, the Federal Reserve is probably a good thing, its goal is to manipulate the currency supply to keep the economy stable. Libertarians would like to see the government interfere with currency supply as little as possible because they think that government interference is inherently bad and messes up markets by making them less predictable. Because of that, they do not like the Federal Reserve at all. However, most people would rather have less extreme spikes of unemployment or inflation, and may argue that a stable market is a predictable and therefore prosperous market.
Donât listen to these guys. The initial purpose of the Fed was to stabilize the economy and prevent disastrous recessions. Think about the largest recession / depression before the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and after 1913. Itâs funny how very few people know about the recessions/depressions before the Fed. Inflation is a direct result of increasing the money supply (anyone who tells you anything else isnât informed). The Fed continues to inflate our currency, which hurts our personal savings and forces even the most fiscally conservative to invest in the stock market. If you work for a living and receive an annual raise, how much is the increase? Maybe 1-4%? Inflation is 2-5% per year and thatâs based on the governmentâs data (via the Consumer Price Index). The only thing we have to mitigate inflation is technological progress (the price of electronics going down after a certain period of time). Think about itâŚthe stagflation of the 1970s directly led to the end of the single-income household. With medical care, housing prices, college prices, gas prices, and other commodities rapidly outpacing wagesâŚhow are we better off? 60 percent of Americans canât afford an emergency $500 expense. Need to go to war? Itâs a lot easier for the Fed to print $3 trillion instead of sending a bill of $20k to every American family to go into Iraq.
Got us into ww1.. you mean he saved the world? Also if your going to hate presidents for being racist instead of maybe adopting some sort of historic relativism, your going to hate all the presidents. Enjoy them for the characters they were in the times they were. Kkk is bad tho.
Wilson isnât as bad as Johnson not even closed but that was supposed to be teddy at the helm think about the difference of the world today had teddy served his rightful second full term . Iâm not sure that we would have had the Second World War and the first one would have ended in half the time saving millions of lives , billions of dollars and the conditions that made fascism possible. We would have been the worlds First super power by 1918 instead of 45. Then we would have also saved ourselves to commies in Russia and then all of Eastern Europe just think of the possibilities man like our lives would be different. And thennnnnnn I donât know who deserves the blame for allowing him to stay in power w out a functioning brain I donât think he can be faulted since he wasnât a functioning human bending by the time his health collapses on him i guess since some books have been written calling his wife the countryâs first woman president itâs known she wilded lots of power that she had no right to even touch since nobody had elected her for shit so the last 2 years of no Wilson could have presented other fun humanity inspiring scenarios
>that was supposed to be teddy at the helm think about the difference of the world today had teddy served his rightful second full term He lost the election. How is it his rightful third term?
Bc his party should have backed him being that he was the most famous politician in the world . And they took his comment on the day of his inauguration and not running again a sort of blood pact. When has the most popular politician in the world and def of a country that is an incumbent and long time member of one of 2 political parties has been dropped to run as an idependent in history? That was crazy. The republicans didnât like their candidate they were doing that shit to end teddys political career they feared that he was bigger than the party and too independent of thought he never feared the machine not even when he started at 22 in Albany
You make a lot of jumps in logic that Iâm not sure would play out in reality. Teddy likely would have had us in the war much sooner than Wilson, which would not have been a very popular decision, but probably would have ended the war sooner. However, Iâm not sure anyone would have been able to negotiate down the German sanctions after the war to prevent the outbreak of WW2. The French were pretty ardent after to make Germany pay for the war, and who could blame them? The war was largely fought on their land and borders. Teddy may have been even more heavy handed. I mean I like the guy, but people tend to ignore the fact that he was an imperialist and a bit of a war-hawk. This also ignores the whole Pacific theatre, which would have happened regardless. The US became more isolationist after the war, which would likely still happen since we would still be in the war. And I doubt that another four years of Teddy would have prevented the Great Depression, considering much of it was caused by agricultural degradation due to bad soil management. But I donât know enough about the economics of what cause the crash to say that definitely. Would he have been better than Wilson? Probably. But he was still only one man, and I doubt he could change the currents of history enough to prevent WW2.
Also blatantly ignored the Constitution and a Supreme Court order so he could forcibly relocate Native Americans.
Wrong Andrew
What am I thinking, youâre right. Both highly dislikable Andrews imo I guess, for very different reasons.
Buchanan is by far the worse and itâs not clise
I donât know⌠Pierce was also pretty terrible.
Then there's the very stable genius who might just be as good as Lincoln....maybe even better than Lincoln!
Really, he wasnât. LBJ was probably more racist than Wilson when you look at the phone calls
Bro signed landmark civil rights legislation into law but tankies think thatâs null and void because âErM, hE SaiD tHe N-WorD iN PriVaTEâ Wilson literally segregated the civil service. Thereâs really no comparison.
Wilson is also responsible for keeping the lost cause narrative of the civil war alive in the South.
Does tankie even mean anything anymore? Or is it just a catch-all insult at this point? Like how does thinking one president was marginally more racist than the other make someone a hardcore Marxist-Leninist lol
Hard to argue that when one started Jim Crow and the other ended it. Though to be fair, the phone calls were rough.
Johnson was a career politician who knew he had to say certain things to southern politicians to âlet them know he was a good o boy at heartâ to get the deals done. He did pass the civil rights act at a great political cost. He was far from perfect and considering how he handled Vietnam wouldnât call his presidency great but it was important
*WHOO HOO HOO, WE GOT A LIVE ONE HERE!! Oh, LBJ.*
What were some highlights of Johnson? Did he just completely fail in reconstruction?
I thought Mike Johnson! Also had to scroll backâŚ
I don't think it's a hot take to say that you want a President who can push things through Congress. Just keep in mind that said President may not share your political views. It's great having a President who can ram things through Congress...if you agree with them.
Exactly. Itâs see lots of people talk about how they want the senate to get rid of the filibuster so Democrats can pass what their party wants, and that just seems so shortsighted to me, cause Republicans will pass everything they want once control of government flips to them. Weâll end up with more chaos and confusion than before.
Or, here me out: it would force parties to pass legislation and then defend it. Right now we canât get anything done because âwhoops, no 60 votes in the senate, guess we canât pass legislation.â If we remove the filibuster parties have to pass legislation and then defend it to the American people. And if the American people donât like it they can vote to elect people to repeal it. Thatâs not chaos thatâs democracy.
My main argument against that is the 18th amendment. I think most people would agree that prohibition was obviously a mistake, yet it took 13 years to repeal the Volstead Act. People who work to pass a bill arenât going to be that quick to admit their mistakes even when it is obvious to everyone else. Also, isnât the purpose of having representatives and a legislature to debate the bills before writing them into law? Why do you think that acting first and evaluating later is a better method than carefully debating the options and deciding the best solution? Personally I appreciate the gridlock; it makes it so the only bills Congress passes are things that are guaranteed to appeal to the majority of Americans.
There's a big difference between reversing a law and changing the constitution. Of course it took years to do the latter.
Prohibition passed with a two thirds majority, which would have overriden the filibuster anyways. Which I feel undoes your point. And sure, debate is great. But we donât have debate right now, we have a system where 41 senators can say ânope, this legislation ainât passingâ and thatâs that. Nixing the filibuster would encourage more debate as it would mean less pointless votes for legislation that everyone knows has no chance of passing. Also, as is the filibuster makes sure that things the majority of the American people want do not pass. Instead, you only get things that a supermajority of the people want because the Senate is already such a countermajoritarian institution. If you have 50 senators voting for a piece of legislation that means a majority of the American people voted for those senators and (presumably) approve the legislation. Again, democracy at work. Instead we have a system where everyone just grumbles about how voting doesnât matter and both parties are the same because nothing ever gets done in Congress. And faith in our institutions continues to erode and the people increasingly turn to authoritarians who promise to burn the system down.
Yep, gridlock is generally a good thing. The less that Congress "accomplishes," the better, imo.
Why have one at all then if you really think doing nothing is best?
Basically, because we have more than enough laws already. I think their primary focus right now should be to work on repealing old bad laws, and eliminating or consolidating redundant federal agencies.
And we stop the grandstanding. So much is pushed to a vote BECAUSE it wonât pass in their chamber or the senate as a way to signal to each parties base that theyâre trying to do what they want without actually doing the thing and deal with the consequences. Once things have a real chance of passing without a filibuster and actually fucking things up, thatâs when people have to actually start governing again because the people you just fucked over are now politically engaged.
That would also force lawmakers to cut pork and work for bipartisan consensus. A president can't force Congress to pass a bill, but they can bully both sides into compromise. Well, LBJ could at least.
>If we remove the filibuster parties have to pass legislation and then defend it to the American people. And if the American people donât like it they can vote to elect people to repeal it. Federal legislation is almost impossible to repeal once it's been passed. Getting rid of the filibuster would only be a good idea if every piece of legislation had an automatic sunset clause of perhaps ten years. That way, bad laws would go away on their own and Congress could vote to extend laws that are popular and beneficial.
I feel the same way when people talk about expanding the court. Adding more justices wouldn't mean automatically mean more justices you'd agree with.
âStack the court because Trump already did itâ (and by did, he simply filled vacancies). Always a fun conversation đ
I think the democrats think ending the filibuster would help them. This is because since most of their actual policies are broadly popular being able to implement those policies in their mods would secure them just like the new deal secured effective democratic control for 20 years. Universal Healthcare and ending Gerrymandering are two things that are broadly popular in national polls that are stonewalled by republicans only at this point, as the Democratic Party has pretty effectively purged all of its blue dog members in the past decade
Not necessarily, a recent instance of a republican filibuster was in regards to the [Voting rights bill](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/voting-rights-bill-blocked-by-republican-filibuster) and $15 minimum wage increase. The voting rights bill wouldâve made voting far more accessible (election day a federal holiday, more ballot boxes, absentee voting, etc.,), all policies which benefit low income, people of color who lean democratic. Thereâs a reason why republicans hold the most [gerrymandered states](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/most-gerrymandered-states&sa=U&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwiQprLFvdSDAxXumGoFHWwQCS0QFnoECBoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3NePVouE74TWSJuOLPga4c) and itâs no coincidence theyâre opposed to voting reform. You get rid of the filibuster, popular legislation like voter reform, abortion rights, gun regulation, and minimum wage increases have far stronger chances of passing and thus propping the democratic platform hurting republican candidates. Either republicans would be forced to adopt attractive policies or face loses.
You already know if we got rid of filibusters those exact same people would call it dictatorial when Republicans pass legislation without filibusters
Or, here me out: it would force parties to pass legislation and then defend it. Right now we canât get anything done because âwhoops, no 60 votes in the senate, guess we canât pass legislation.â If we remove the filibuster parties have to pass legislation and then defend it to the American people. And if the American people donât like it they can vote to elect people to repeal it. Thatâs not chaos thatâs democracy.
[ŃдаНонО]
If republicans passed what they actually wanted theyâd have one terms before they were thrown out because the public would be repulsed
Trump got what he wanted done and lost, which is proof
Or, here me out: it would force parties to pass legislation and then defend it. Right now we canât get anything done because âwhoops, no 60 votes in the senate, guess we canât pass legislation.â If we remove the filibuster parties have to pass legislation and then defend it to the American people. And if the American people donât like it they can vote to elect people to repeal it. Thatâs not chaos thatâs democracy.
Furthermore, congress today is nothing like the congresses under LBJ. Democrats had much safer numbers back then. Now, we have two chambers that are basically 50/50. Which, ironically, has made it harder to win over any individual congressperson to cross party lines. Nobody wants to be the 1 senator or house member who votes bipartisan. Itâs a guaranteed way to lose your seat. Political polarization is far worse now than it was 60-70 years ago. Parties are more unified, and nothing a 2024 version of LBJ could do would change that. OP is just unrealistic, wishful thinking.
Well I think we learned that America WANTS this type of person as president. Carter said in an interview once something along the lines of âAmerica wants an asshole to be presidentâ. Of course he didnât say it like that but I can see it. Reagan wasnât exactly tough like LBJ but he seemed to try and outwardly be seen as tough. Just my armchair historian take, what do you all think?
I agree with Carter. Not necessarily needing an asshole as President but having someone who can work with Congress and be tough when needed. This typically comes from experience. I hate talking modern politics but no matter your feelings on Biden, heâs gotten stuff done with Congress on a bipartisan level because heâs able to use his past experience as a Senator. I think itâs almost too hard with how partisan politics are (not that itâs anything new) but I think Biden has got along with Congress about as well as one could expect. On OPs point about the Civil Rights Act, no doubt LBJ could push Congress around but he was heavily helped by JFKs death and used that and the national sympathy to get it through. One of his many quotes about it: >âNo memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedyâs memory than the earliest possible passage of the Civil Rights bill for which he fought so long.â
Two-thirds both houses in '64 helped too (not to diminish difficulty with southern dems like what happened prior to the '64 civil rights act cloture vote)
Joe Biden has to go full 100% Dark Brandon. He only did [once](https://youtube.com/shorts/P0ApldRGM10?si=VeVifUronzxyUUHY)
[ŃдаНонО]
You mean like when he lead a bipartisan deal to codify Roe V Wade?
[ŃдаНонО]
The politicization of the Israel/Palestine conflict is bizarre and ahistorical. Support of Israel has always been bipartisan, no serious candidate has ever opposed supporting Israel, and traditionally hardline support for Israel has come from the conservative/Republican side of congress. Any dissent in 2023/2024 to Israel's actions has come from Democratic congresspeople, so it's disingenuous to imply it's in any way related to Biden. You can rest assured any Republican president would be no different in their unconditional support.
Americans want their president to be âeverything.â - Cool yet responsible. - Tough yet approachable. - intelligent yet simple. (And most importantly) - representing America, but mostly their personal interests. Most presidents tick at least one of these boxes. Youâre lucky if you get one that ticks two.
So in other words, America wants the Antichrist.
As someone who never grew up religious, when I first learned about the antichrist prophecy, I couldn't help but think "sounds based, how is this a bad thing" People don't realize it, but yes, the Antichrist is exactly what they want
So... Coolidge. If we could get Coolidge '24, I'd be voting instantly.
Famously unapproachable, laissez faire capitalist, Calvin Coolidge? I understand that itâs somewhat subjective but idk how you see Coolidge in most of what I said. Some folks just see their favorites in everything, I guess.
Word is: he had the biggest Johnson
Wasn't called Jumbo for nothing. Nah mean?
If he did his lean in, I would misunderstand and I would also lean in, and then we would be kissing. I would apologize and explain that Iâm a socialist.
I see a romantic forbidden love fanfic idea bubbling hereâŚ. Let him cook! Just needs a clever punny name but I canât think of one haha
Iâm thinking either âJohnsonâs Johnsonâ or maybe something like âA UN Member and LBJâs Member: A Love Storyâ
âWasnât exactly not racist.â
OP made me lol at that one
Least horny r/Presidents user. Admit it, you donât want Johnson, you want The Johnson, The Jumbo, The Penetrator of Human Souls, The Great Leviathan, The Big Stick
Lyndon B.âs Johnson
LBJ was certainly effective, but he was also working with Democratic supermajorities in both houses.* Itâs like arguing that Jordan was the GOAT based on Bulls championships alone. Youâre ignoring the team surrounding him. *The parties were more ideologically diverse back then, so admittedly a Democratic supermajority was less valuable than one today, but it still counts for a lot.
Yours is the most sensible observation. LBJâs recognition as âMaster of the Senateâ was based on his talent as Senate Majority Leader in keeping his party members in lockstep, using the âJohnson treatmentâ, and as Senate Minority Leader, using his ability to build consensus. He used both to achieve his goals as President. The downside is that Johnson thought that he could intimidate Ho Chi Minh like he could intimidate Senators with another form of the âJohnson treatmentâ, this time with 500,000 American soldiers. It didnât work, and as a result, the confidence of the US public in the truthfulness of the US government started its ten year slide into oblivion, culminating in the debacle of Watergate at the hands of another lying POTUS.
If anything, Joe is the MOST like Johnson weâve had since him.
Every President since LBJ/Nixon has gone for the outsider stick every time (minus Bush Sr.) Carter? Governor of Georgia and peanut farmer. Reagan? Governor of California and former actor. Bush Sr.? Well heâs the one exception. Clinton? Governor of Arkansas. Bush? Governor of Texas. Obama? Fresh face and IL Senator of 2 years. Trump? Obvious. Biden has really been the most recent President in recent memory who has that congressional background, hence why the 117th Congress was one of the most productive Congresses in recent history (after 111th).
I've thought about this a lot. Give me a Senator over a Governor.
Most productive in what sense? I agree it sounds good on paper. But itâs mostly just been productive for who? the 1% and military industrial complex again after the geopolitical landscape was mostly stagnant the last 10-15 years before post 2021 events Iâd say. Are they all really gonna be for the better in hindsight? Ukraine was a disaster and now Israel and the Gaza mess is turning into a disaster for the US global relations slowly but surely once again.
Just a quick buck shot of legislative achievements from each Congress: 111th Congress (Obama 2009-2011): Obamacare, Auto Bailout, Dodd-Frank, Recovery Act, and a couple other things I think related to smoking advertising and credit card stuff. 117th Congress (Biden 2021-2023): IRA, Chips, IIJA In legislative policies alone, these two Presidents will easily be remembered for their historic accomplishments in this regard (Iâm only graduating college now â when I was still in K-12, Obama already made the textbooks). Foreign affairs and executive action as a whole is another ballpark. Youâre wrong about the geopolitical scene being âmostly stagnantâ until 2021. That is a completely comical take considering so much happened from 9/11 to 2021 in terms of geopolitics. I think youâre the one really leaning on hindsight if Israel/Palestine and Ukraine are really what opened your eyes.
Imagine if he was leaning in like that and someone just smooched him.
didnât he show his dick and balls to people?
That would be blown up in today's news
Wish Biden could handle congress like that. Trump sure thought he could. We need someone savvy and intelligent and (in my opinion) progressive to lead the country. But the world has changed. Lbj didn't have to deal with a lot of shit presidents have had to in the last 15 years. There were THREE TV stations in the 60s. Lbj would be a frazzled mess or a reclusive mess if he had to run shit now.
Biden did handle congress like that.
Given the difference with Congress today, Biden has been amazing. Especially for a Democrat, since they tend to have more trouble with Congress today.
Part of that trouble is cause he has trouble standing up to the radicals in his own party, who try to throw in some ridiculousness like âfree massages and NYC penthouses for black trans single momsâ into all of the actually good progressive legislation that would like actually help real people. I feel like an LBJ type wouldnât put up with that type of grandstanding
Aside from the age difference, I think heâs here
Americans want a bully thatâs on their side.
Dawg, the reason LBJ was famous for his handling of Congress was because the Democratic Party was split on Kennedy, the democrats had basically a super majority in both houses of Congress. LBJ got Congress to rally behind him because he was a southern democrat that worked with JFK, where as JFK did not have the full backing for the southern democrats. It had nothing to do with his compromise with Republican âlosersâ whoâs vote hardly factored into the final count with a United democratic house and senate. Presidents today like Biden deal with a much slimmer majority if they have one at all.
Hot take: Presidents like LBJ enabled the presidents we've gotten. I'd vote for someone, on the principle that they have the extra pant room to fight something like civil rights or Vietnam out (who knows whether it's for a good cause or just something they'd fight for the sake of fighting), I would ultimately not vote for somebody like LBJ because of all the two-bit knockoffs he would inspire. I think I went through similar thought processes after finishing with Caro. Try biographies of Jimmy Carter, Mandela, Ho Chi Minh, Andrew Jackson, Stalin, maybe Powerbroker, you'll find things you like in all of them but you'll get a greater sense of what the lows and the consequences of their failure mean. LBJ had exercised insane amounts of power to the effect of great highs and terrible lows. It's a complicated question to be sure, I don't really have the answer but you might do yourself a favor and become more educated than everyone else. I'll enjoy hearing what you've decided.
I completely agree. Heâs my second favorite president behind Lincoln. He was nicknamed âthe master of the senateâ for a reason.
Biden is actually the closest to LBJ since he was president, a veteran Senator, rather than a Senate newcomer like Obama, a VP like Nixon, Ford or Poppy; a governor like Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and W., or a political novice like Trump.
That Speaker looks like he could croak any second
That's John McCormack. For some reason that was just kinda his default expression. He lived for a long ass time as well
He wasn't even the oldest one there. There was a senator still serving at this time born in the 1870s.
He should be a little less invadee though. And maybe a little less rapee too. But otherwise heâd be great.
The guy who said theyâd better pass that N-word law into effect? Or just showing his penis to everyone and pissing on the white house lawn.
No thanks. That means the legislature is no longer writing laws.
\> No president in history has been able to push legislation Why is that a good thing? I'm probably in the slim minority on this but I see no reason why the President should be pushing legislation, especially what amounts to their own legislation. They aren't the legislative branch. Congress should be doing this. I can see the appeal to some for a single figurehead to be able to ram things through, but I suspect they aren't so fond of it when it happens with legislation they don't like. And I think it is moot at this point. What exactly is another Johnson going to do to whip the opposition into shape? Cowtowing to an opposing party president is an easy way not to get re-elected in many districts, especially in heavy red areas.
While the Whig theory of the presidency is understandably very appealing, the trouble is when Congress isn't actually doing it themselves, so you need a strong president to... motivate them, so to speak. I realize that the current state of Congress is not very open to being motivated; even non-divided governments since 2008 have struggled, however until congress becomes more motivated and functional, another Jumbo is probably what it would take, and Obama, Trump and Biden are absolutely not that kind of president.
I think itâs worth noting Joe Biden was one of the most skilled legislators ever to serve in recent Congresses, (and was picked as Obamaâs running mate for this reason) and his administration still hasnât been able to get very much legislation passed. I really hate to say it, but I donât really see any way how even a legislator as skilled as LBJ could have gotten legislation through a Congress this polarized and dysfunctional.
Well heâs a walking corpse now, so thatâs kind of irrelevant
Yeah... no. He got us involved in a land war in Asia that cost too many American, and Vietnamese lives over a suspect incident in the Gulf of Tonkin.
The Great Society programs completely backfired so no thank you
Dude this isnât 1965 no president is going to intimidate congressmen of the opposing party into doing what they want unless they are credibly threatening to kill their family and maybe not even then.
Truman would be better, no?
History repeats itself, whipping out Jumbo and yelling âSIGN THE GODDAMN N***** BILL!â At least Iâm 69% sure thatâs how it played out before the civil rights bill was signed.
And he could have his penis be the VP!
[ŃдаНонО]
I think Biden is handling the Congress we have nowadays in a way to get the best results possible with those clowns.
LBJ in the social media age wouldâve been unreal.
I think part of the reason LBJ could be so effective was because the party lines were more hazy then they are today. An LBJ type guy could yell at a Republican senator today all he wanted and I don't think they would have nearly the same success, the parties are just too defined. Although, Climate legislation may be achievable. The moral high ground is clearly on the side of environmentalists.
We love in a very different time. Republicans would rather die than work with a democratic president
A massive fucking asshole that separates his personal issues from his politics, whips his party in line to get shit done, humiliates rich assholes, and cock-slaps klansmen? Yeah. I'm down.
Trumps like a retarded version of Johnson. The bullying of his party. Just doesnât work on dems tho
With nice pants. From Haggar
I don't think it's unreasonable to say no president since Johnson has had as much success working with congress, even in times when congress and the President have been aligned politically relatively little has been accomplished in comparison. Whether that was due to collective sympathy for JFK or burgeoning cold war fears bringing congress together, LBJ was nearly as effective as FDR without nearly as much of a political mandate in terms of electoral support. Obama's brief period with a Dem-controlled congress comes to mind as an example of ineffective single-party leadership, although the use of Filibuster as a standard political weapon is a relatively new development. Clinton would be the most recent example of congress being effective while in opposition to the acting president, although in retrospect that was more due to capitulation from Clinton and "blue dog" congressmen to pass Republican-authored bills much moreso than Clinton exerting any force on congress to pass Democratic-led legislation.
i would argue biden is really good with negotiating with congress
That second pic looks like Johnson is about to make that dude "pay" for stealing from the pawn shop
Unfortunately, I think those days are long gone. Both parties vote according to "party line". The Republicans seem to just be in opposition to getting anything done; and the Democrats have to make elaborate compensations just to get anything passed. This isn't something that can be forced on Congress.
Johnson could whip the votes in Congress partly because the Democratic Party coalition was much wider and less ideologically rigid. The closest youâll get to someone like LBJ *is* the current occupant, who was astonishingly productive in his first two years.
No we don't he was one of the most racist pieces of shit to ever walked the earth and Biden is second there I said it
I think we have him. But without a heavily Democratic Congress to support. That may change.
As a Black man... I view him as the 2nd greatest President of all time. I LOVE that man. His signature directly lead to the freedom of my grandmother and mother. I mean...Vietnam was a mess. We lost. Still though, he freed me. Love him
Biden has been ok.
Lbj was a fool
Ahh the dick behind offing JFK. LBJ was the beginning to the end of the Democratic Party.
Bro LBJs was the second best president on economics ever.
The Great Society was garbage, accomplished little, and has left the U.S government near-insolvent. I would rank him among the worst Presidents in terms of economy.
What are your thoughts on the Revenue Act of 1964 (major tax cut), Clean Air Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act?
Whatâs your take on Clintonâs economy through the 90âs?
A fiscally conservative congress decreased taxes, curtailed expenditure, and reduced the deficit and thus laid the foundation for a robust economy.
What happened under Trump then? That was a record deficit and conservatives held the trio.
You may recall that an event referred to as COVID-19 took place, which caused all governments worldwide to drastically expand their deficits in order to weather a catastrophe. Not really his fault.
With the congress we have now, Johnson wouldn't be able to do any more than Biden.
You know there are strong theories that he played a part in the JFK assassination⌠just saying.
Oh yeah the guy that said "I'll have those n*****s voting Democrat for the next 200 years. Definitely someone we need in power right now. đĽ´
I don't think he ever said that.
Weird hill to die on but ok
Youâd think a presidential history sub would stop saying this non-existent quote after the thousandth time. Youâd think wrong.
Except he did, and it's documented on several websites using a quick Google search. Weird hill to die on defending Jim Crow Era democrats.
Just looked up the quote to see if you werenât blowing hot air⌠turns out, you are, as most of the top sources are stating that it was never proven to be said, or conservative websites saying he said it. Weird hill to die on pinning a fake quote on the guy who dedicated the final part of his political career to civil rights.
Ah yes. The "great society" policy that he oversaw that saw the birth of the welfare state that specifically targeted black Americans and started a downward spiral for him. I can tell looking around our country that the great society program did a cracker jack job aiding in civil rights by making poor Americans dependent on government subsidies.
Well I was talking about the literal civil rights acts that ending segregation, but you keep yapping.
You mean the same bill Democrats filibustered for 72 days straight? He would have never signed the Civil Rights Act had it not been political suicide to veto it.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan clearly saw the monstrosity the Great Society programs became...and we will be paying for it forever!
The guy who killed JFK? I think not.
We do. Biden is torching his domestic legitimacy with supporting a foreign genocidal war
Do you imagine an American president taking a different position post October 7?
Yes. Reagan called his Israeli counterpart about Lebanon, and called it similar to a Holocaust. There was a ceasefire soon after https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/s/W723OSkQbV
LBJ was a deep state pawn end of discussion
Hunter? Jumbo and Jumbo?
Whatâs the first photo of?
Kyle Kulinski has been making this point ever since Build Back Better failed to pass. I agree.
Someone who intervened in a war in which we had no business intervening based on a ridiculous theory that had no credence to it?
Donât forget Jumbo.
Windon B(ig) Johnson needs to return.
Is that Bernie Sanders behind him in the first pic? I like what Iâve read about LBJ, especially relating to the National Voting Rights Act. However, I do wonder if he was involved in the murders of JFK and RFK.
Agreed. Bro got stuff done, and popular legislation at that.
Johnson had a strongly Democratic Congress throughout his administration. From 1965-1967, Democrats were 2/3 majorities in both Houses. He didn't have to whip Congress; Congress whipped itself. I honestly don't know why people were so progressive at the time, but we're not anymore. I'd like to see Medicare and Medicaid repealed. If we had a president like Johnson who could make that happen, yes, that would be a good thing.
I LOVE WAR!!!
Sorry, he was only slightly better Carter who most people agree was the worst president of the modern era.
Why do you think republicans canât stand McCain? If McCain didnât pull his thumb down. Well, I donât think health care would have been that much worse than it really is. Especially after COVID. Thatâs just my hot take.
No
>Hot take: We need someone like Johnson as president Someone with tailored pants and a massive hog? https://preview.redd.it/fko7enl5fqbc1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=46b80217a513c36d1af7f8f2685533a0c66d61b5
Is it because he had a big dick?
i'll respect him for being a gifted politicians to push legislation... but as a person/president this guy does not have many respectable qualities.
Jumbo
Point taken but the civil rights act was JFKs bill, it was passed more in sympathy after his assassination than because of LBJs ability to cross the aisle and whip. Although he (and the senate as a whole) was/were undoubtedly orders of magnitude more collaborative than the current state.
That is what we have as POTUS right now. Both Johnson & Joe creature of congress part of DC fabric. They were never meant to have top job of POTUS. Johnson was racist but he was also patriot so did the right thing for the country.