Lyndon Baines Johnson (and Barack Hussein Obama)

Why am I writing about a guy who left office 39 years ago? Because the responses to my Barack Obama post show that some people don’t understand the dangers of a liberal President who’s out to change everything.

Forty years later, we are still left with the damage done by Lyndon B. Johnson. Welfare, public housing, the Immigration Act of 1965, Medicare and Medicaid, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Everything that there is to hate about the liberal welfare state goes back to Lyndon B Johnson. When new liberal programs are created, they never go away.

The problem seems to be that no one remembers LBJ. I don’t remember him. I wasn’t born when he became president. There have only been two other Democratic presidents since LBJ: Carter and Clinton. People will note, correctly, that there was little change in policy between the Clinton and George Bush administrations. There is also the perception that Carter didn’t do much as president. This leads some people into a false sense of security that nothing much will change if Obama is elected president.

So the Big Question is this: will an Obama presidency be like the Carter and Clinton presidencies where there wasn’t much of a national policy change from the Republican administrations that preceded them? Or will Obama be like Lyndon B. Johnson who oversaw a radical leftward policy shift that has survived for more than 39 years after he left office?

To answer this question, let’s examine presidents Carter and Clinton and see why they failed to be like LBJ.

JAMES EARL CARTER, JR.

Jimmy Carter was a weak president who came to power at a time of economic malaise and when the country was still recovering from the Vietnam War. There was no national mood in favor of radical change. Carter also had some odd principles about opposing pork barrel spending, which caused him to not get along with Tip O’Neill.

Despite that, Jimmy Carter managed to leave us with two new federal departments: the Department of Education (annual budget of $64.2 billion in 2006 [source]) and the Department of Energy (annual budget of $23.4 billion in 2006). Once new government departments are created, they never go away, and they spend taxpayer money in perpetuity.

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

Bill Clinton couldn’t do anything really damaging as president because he didn’t have the support of Congress. In fact, during most of his presidency, Newt Gingrich had more power over public policy than Bill Clinton. Even when Democrats nominally controlled Congress during the first two years of his presidency, he didn’t have the support of Congress. Congress refused to pass his healthcare reform bill in 1993.

Furthermore, Clinton wasn’t a far-left type of Democrat. This is probably because his early upbringing was in a religious prole Deep South environment.

BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

It’s dangerous to assume that Obama will be a weak president without the support of Congress, or that he’s not committed to far-left policy initiatives.

Let’s first examine the issue of whether he’s a far-leftist. Unlike the last two Democratic presidents who were raised in a southern Baptist environment, Obama is a child of a Muslim and a far-left atheist, he spent four years as a child living in the Muslim nation of Indonesia. For the rest of his childhood, he attended elite private schools in Hawaii, a solidly blue state (Hawaii, for example, was one of only 9 states that voted for Dukakis in the 1988 election). Then he spent 20 years in Chicago attending the church of the radical leftist Reverend Wright. In 2007, he had the most liberal voting record in the Senate. He has extreme leftist written all over him. His background shows absolutely no connection to traditional middle class American values. Obama has left-wing liberal elite written all over him, with a little bit of black radicalism thrown in. Obama is really good at giving speeches that don’t sound far-left, but there’s no evidence that he has a centrist bone in his body.

Democrats currently have a majority of the House, and the Senate is sort of tied. Typically, when a president wins, his coattails help his party win Senate and House elections. If Obama wins, there will also be a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate.

Unlike Carter and Clinton who didn’t have the full support of their own party in Congress, if Obama wins, I think the Democrats in Congress (who will be the majority party) will go along with whatever he says. Democratic members of Congress who refuse to support him will be called racist, and being called a racist is every good liberal’s worst nightmare. Every policy initiative he puts forth will be enthusiastically endorsed by his liberal sycophants in the media. Unlike the last two Democratic presidents who won their party nomination in the voting booth, Obama owes his nomination to superdelegates, and every current member of Congress is a superdelegate. Obama will pull our troops out of Iraq, and this will create the perception of a big peace dividend that can be used to fund new liberal programs.

The two buzzwords of Obama’s campaign are “hope” and “change.” “Hope” is just meaningless talk, but “change” means change. All the changes will be in a left-wing liberal direction. Democratic members of Congress will not want to vote against the mandate for change and be labeled a racist for doing so.

The conclusion is that Obama is to the left of Clinton and even to the left of Carter, and he will have more support from Congress than either of those two presidents had. If he becomes president, he will do the most damage to the nation since Lyndon B. Johnson. History shows that any big spending initiative and new government programs created during the Obama administration will live on in perpetuity. Any money saved by pulling out of Iraq a few years earlier will be spent many times over in the long run.

Comments

[Peter]

Today there's much more acknowledgment, among people of both parties, that expensive social programs don't always work well. During Johnson's era there was much more faith in the power of government to cure social ills.

[disaster2000]

Assuming everything you said is completely true you still haven't made a case that McCain is the better candidate. Elections often aren't about which candidate you dislike, but about which candidate you dislike the least. Obama will probably win because whatever his flaws, the electorate likes the alternative even LESS.

[Jim Beam]

Forty years later, we are still left with the damage done by Lyndon B. Johnson. Welfare, public housing, the Immigration Act of 1965, Medicare and Medicaid, the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And what "damage" was caused by these horrific public policies? You didn't state any.

I guess a more efficient way to use precious taxpayer money would be to send all "undesirables" to the gas chambers?

[disaster2000]

And to be honest if Mrs. McCain can't release her tax returns why should I trust that? How dumb do I have to be to think that just because they file separate returns they are somehow not true marriage "partners"? California and other western community property states see through this tax fraud and require married filing separate to evenly divide income so that each pays tax on one half regardless filing status.

[Polanski]

Let's face it: the Republican party is a joke--dead dead dead. Who gives an f about abortion? dah Rs

W is pro-affirmative action, and pro-low-IQ immigration. The Republicans are just as feckless as the Democrats.

F the US--I do business across the world. My fellow citizens are the talented, wherever they may reside. Why not give our transfer payments to the truly needy--the world's desitute and hungry? I'd rather that than pay for homegrown welfah for dah brothas.

[disaster2000]

I'm guessing the republican is the low IQ candidate in this campaign. According to his wiki page McCain graduated almost dead last in his class at the Naval Academy and only gained admission to begin with ecause his father was a famous WW2 admiral. In other words, affirmative action. Some people get shot down in combat as unlucky accident but for others it is completely predictable....

[disaster2000]

And when he was captured he was crippled by torture because he refused to see the light like everyone else that he would eventually have to sign a legally meaningless propaganda confession even if they moved his dead hand across the paper. He did eventually sign the confession, by the way. Personally I am uncomfortable with someone willing to destroy himself over a meaningless gesture. Is that how he will govern, with relentless ignorance?

[Polanski]

D2

I do not support McCain.

[disaster2000]

Obama refused to wear a flag pin because he was against the type of blind patriotism that would lead companies of fire fighters and police to work for months breathing toxic dust at 9/11 because the EPA told them it was 'safe'. We live in a more complex world than America in the 1930s and we simply need someone who can see through lies. Is that McCain or is that Obama? Lets have a vote.....

[New Anon]

Both McCain and Obama are terrible. Either one will wreck the country. And so, if we are going to be screwed regardless of who wins then I prefer the Democrats be the party positioned to get all the blame when this country hits rock bottom.

Also, I still consider myself to be a conservative Republican and am hopeful a McCain loss will lead to a purge of the National Review/Weekly Standard Invade/Import the world neocons. Removing the neocons from power in the GOP is a necessary prerequisite for creating a true conservative movement.

[Astroboy]

Chittum's book Civil War II, the coming breakup of the US is available on-line.

[disaster2000]

The democrats are the party for extending the GI Bill for veterans while the republicans call it too 'generous'. Why don't republicans just start wearing signs that say 'kick me'?

[dreamin]

I think it had more to do with the mood of the country in the 1960s. As someone else mentioned, it's pretty much known now that those social programs don't really work.

I suppose there's a possibility of national health care, but I think it's unlikely at this point. The liberal elites know that the country is 30% black and hispanic. Just as they wouldn't send their children to a school which was 30% black and hispanic, I doubt they would be willing to share a health program with them.

I doubt that Obama will be elected, but if he is, I suspect that some token concessions will be made, such as beefing up medicaid and student loans, but nothing big will be changed.

[tommy]

I would be interested in seeing Half Sigma's (and other posters') lists of the top five or ten worst presidents in American history.

[disaster2000]

FLASHBACK: Bush's 2000 RNC Convention

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slmr024JYaA&feature=related

[Gamma Man]

Sigma, you're correct about Johnson, and probably about Obama as well.

But you're blind to one fact: the second most damaging US president in recent times after Johnson is none other than George W. Bush. (Previously, Lincoln and Roosevelt finished off the republic, while Johnson merely destroyed whatever was left of the constitution and rule of law) And so far, McCain promises to be even more destructive along similar lines. More wars,more debt, more open borders, etc.

Either man, McCain or Obama with their administrations, will deal the final blow to the country, each in their own peculiar and destructive way.
You should have endorsed that evil nazi doctor, Ron Mengele Paul, from the start. He was the lesser evil.

[Vim]

Gamma Man: I am curious. Why is Lincoln possibly the worst president in your opinion?

[Gamma Man]

Easy Vim, Lincoln turned the Federal state and big business into a political machinery which effectively erased the Constitution and the Republic.
My gallery of rogues contains:
-both Roosevelts (imperialists the two of them and a socialist the younger one)
- Wilson (he single-handedly destroyed Europe and civilization in 1917 by rekindling the Great War)
-Roosevelt (A Mussolini wanna-be and a war criminal. Supported communism to the end.).
- Johnson (for the same reasons Ziggy has pointed out: statism, social engineering of the worst kind. Possibly his only good deed was killing the Kennedys ).
- Clinton (for unleashing the full power of Boomer liberalism and idiocy on the country)
- Bush the second (for pursuing the most lunatic foreign policy to date and bankrupting the US.).

[Dragon Horse]

Typical of Half Sigma to lie.

Obama was raised from his late childhood until he went to college by his grandparents who were born in Iowa (definition of middle working class America).

He had almost no contact with his father, and only saw him once (at 10 years old) before he died. Obama's father was not a Muslim, by the time he met Obama's mother he was a atheist, if you read Obama's book you would know that. His grandfather was the one who converted to Islam from Christianity during WWI while stationed in Zanzibar, as their tribe (Luo) is not overly religious and contains a large Christian minority who have had no conflict with the Muslim members. If you actually read about them and their lives in Kenya and Tanzania you would know that to. Obviously reading is not fundamental or intellectual laziness is king.

In any case I'm sure HS is afraid as 4.5 months out McCain is already studly dropping in the polls, even in right leaning swing states...yes it is early yet but the trend I'm seeing on Real Clear Politics is keeping some Republican National Committee people up at night I'm sure.

Oh well, maybe we will get lucky and HS will emigrate to Israel after Barack Hussein Obama is sworn in in January 20, 2009.

I'm sure HS will be so disillusioned and angry that he was elected and being that to be elected a significant population of whites will have had to vote for him (and I'm sure the majority of Jews) he will be at a loss for who to demonize...I'm sure he will submit some type of conspiracies about blacks some how.

[Dragon Horse]

"he will do the most damage to the nation since Lyndon B. Johnson. History shows that any big spending initiative and new government programs created during the Obama administration will live on in perpetuity."

Typical right wing internet scare tactic.

Please outline the policies Obama has presented himself or on his website that would result in this?

You did not name one.

I'm can wait.

[tommy]

Please outline the policies Obama has presented himself or on his website that would result in this?

He favors illegal immigration, at best he will do nothing about affirmative action, he has shown no interest in fixing existing entitlements even as he seeks to bring the federal government into health care for the general population, and he has no foreign policy except "talking" to bad guys (which we do anyway through back channels). I have a hard time naming anything besides getting us out of Iraq (by maybe 2013 in Obama's estimation) that I agree with him on.

[Luke Lea]

The president LBJ resembles most closely is George W., not Obama. Both were Texans with Texas-size egos and Southern style moral inferiority complexes which led to moral extravagance. No more Texans!

[Gamma Man]

I happen to agree with Luke Lea. Let's see:

Obama has personality issues, linked to his upbringing and his father.
So does Bush.

Obama is half-Black. Bush is half-Mexican (or thinks he is).

Obama is a liberal. So is Bush.

Obama is for open borders. Ditto for Bush.

Obama has no talent. Neither does Bush.

Obama was given an artificial boost in life because of who he was (AA). So did Bush (daddy's boy).

Obama thinks he's the Messiah. Bush believes he's doing God's will.

Obama hates America. Bush loves Mexico.

Obama hates Whites. Bush loves Mexicans.

Obama did drugs. So did Bush.

Obama was raised by his grandmother. Bush' s mother looks like his grandmother.

Obama works for big business. Bush is big business.

Obama is an empty suit and not even articulate. Bush is neither articulate nor charismatic.

Having written this, I think McCain is ten times worse than Bush. As for Obama, he's just an unmitigated disaster waiting to happen. Can the US weather an Obama presidency? Perhaps. Can the country afford 2 Obama terms. Nope.
Can the country survive just one MCCain term? Wait and see. It depends of the medications he's taking.
Under medical control, he can sort of impersonate Reagan for four years.

[Dragon Horse]

"He favors illegal immigration, at best he will do nothing about affirmative action, he has shown no interest in fixing existing entitlements even as he seeks to bring the federal government into health care"

All the same as McCain.

As far as foreign policy? What is McCain's foreign policy besides staying in Iraq?

What is his policy toward East Asia (China, South Korea, our alliance with Japan), what about Latin America (Cuba, Columbia, Venezuela)...what about Russia, EU?

[Jody]

Dragon: Seriously, you can't think of a single new major spending initiative from Obama that has the potential of living in perpetuity? Not one?

No nationalized health care for you then.

[disaster2000]

If Obama closes the "Enron Loophole" on routing oil futures trades through foreign subsidiaries of US exchanges he would have done enough to ensure a successful first term.

I don't understand what it is about Phil Gramm and his unjailed gangster wife Wendy the ex-Enron board member that makes them compulsively wreck American finance but James Bond or someone needs to relinquish them of their SPECTOR rings.....

[disaster2000]

I mean look at this double crossing conman. If you need more circumstantial evidence of a crime gene look at Phil Gramm. He began his career with a breathtaking act of political betrayal ..."In 1981, Gramm attended Democratic Caucus budget meetings and then secretly shared their strategy with Republicans to help pass newly inaugurated President Ronald Reagan's budget.[citation needed] In response, the House Democratic leadership stripped him of his seat on the committee..."

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

[disaster2000]

After his disaster banking reform bill in 1999 that Paulson and treasury and the fed are now scrambling to contain, he graduated to Enron ("Gramm was one of five co-sponsors of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000,which critics blame for permitting the Enron scandal to occur. -wiki)" and then the mortgage disaster through his strange connection to Swiss UBS Bank as vice-chairman, PHIL GRAMM IS NOW ECONOMIC ADVISOR TO JOHN MCCAIN!!!!!!!

[Dragon Horse]

Jody:

Most Americans, of all races wanted some form of nationalized health care.

So if they want it the fact you need to spend money on it (which is obvious) is not seen as a negative by most people.

Just because you view it that way does not make it bad for the country, just bad for you from your perspective obviously, as a politician he would not be promoting it so strongly if most people polled negatively on it.

I can imagine McCain keeping us in Iraq and starting a war with Iran, while we are still stuck in Afghanistan is not going to cost billions upon billions of dollars and lives...I'm sure this waste of money doesn't bother you.

[Dragon Horse]

Seems most White People are positive too Obama, but then again they don't live in perpetual fear of dark people like many beta and delta male right wingers. LOL

"Poll Finds Four in 10 Think Obama's Candidacy Will Improve Race Relations
ANALYSIS by GARY LANGER

June 22, 2008—

Racial attitudes among white Americans show little if any net effect on Barack Obama's candidacy for president, an ABC News analysis finds, because negative views toward Obama among the least racially sensitive whites largely are balanced by pro-Obama sentiment among those with the highest racial sensitivities.

Three in 10 whites express less racially sensitive views, such as having some feelings of prejudice or believing that blacks in their communities do not experience discrimination; they hold generally critical views of Obama and favor John McCain for president by a 26-point margin. But an additional two in 10 whites are at the high end of racial sensitivity -- and they favor Obama by 19 points. "

[Jody]

Most Americans, of all races wanted some form of nationalized health care.

So if they want it the fact you need to spend money on it (which is obvious) is not seen as a negative by most people.

Just because you view it that way does not make it bad for the country, just bad for you from your perspective obviously, as a politician he would not be promoting it so strongly if most people polled negatively on it.

So then you agree that'll be a

[a] big spending initiative and new government programs created during the Obama administration will live on in perpetuity

Which means under your terms you're also partaking in a "Typical right wing internet scare tactic"

I've also noted that for you (but not me!) that popular = good.

[Jason]

Jim Bean asks what damage LBJ's programs did. How about the decline of the traditional American family? Before LBJ, poor children had fathers. After LBJ they had absent "baby daddies" and a welfare check. How about the crime rate which quickly exploded soon after LBJs war on poverty began.

[c.o. jones]

Great points Gamma Man.

A lot of the media portray Bush as some sort of ultra-conservative. I have always maintained that his ideological godfather is Nixon, not Reagan, and Nixon's administration was just LBJ redux, with some law-and-order rhetoric for effect. In terms of temperment they're not that far apart either, with a penchant for secrecy and placing a premium on a perverted notion of "loyalty."

Luke Lea draws a comparison between LBJ's and Bush's personalities. I'm not seeing it - Bush can't go 2 sentences without saying "compassion" or "family values." I imagine LBJ would be very dimissive of that sort of touchy-feely stuff and make fun of Bush behind his back, or maybe even to his face.

[rater]

LBJ was not a nice man. See these photos. They are also very funny.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~commstud/resources/nonverbal/lbj.htm

[Matt]

what a bunch of hooey. Not the original commentary, but the responses. If it walks like a duck, smells like a duck, and tastes like a duck, it's a duck. Obama is probably the most dishonest politician I have seen in my lifetime. He has disavowed, equivocated, and twisted statements to reflect "new realities" over and over again. He reminds in a way of Lenin in 1917. Holding back, not being pinned down, but seizing the moment when it comes.

1. He is woefully deficient in character
2. he sells out his family, his preacher of 20 years,and beliefs when it becomes politically expedient repeatedly.
3. He does not offer specifics. only bluster
4. He has been found to be a brutally efficient Chicago style pol.
5. he has the most liberal record in the Senate.

As to LBJ, he was one of the worst presidents in our country's history. He mismanaged the Vietnam War terribly, his programs did in fact do great damage, and have been part of the cause for the poor financial condition of our country while doing very little good for those they targeted, and a lot of the decline of America happened on his watch.

Perception is everything these days, and unfortunately, there is a new generation wearing rose colored glasses again.

[bristlecone]

Congrats on your Instalanche. You're in the Big Time now...

[Oyster]

Reasons to vote for McCain over Obama. Hmmmm, let's see. Ah yes, here's one.

Three words:

Supreme Court Nominations

[GW Crawford]

Obama has shown he has a humourless mean streak as bad as LBJs

As far as meaningless gestures, maybe you libs regard turning at the drop of a hat to provide comfort and moral support for an enemy virtuous but I regard a man who holds out under torture long enough to show that the confession they sign is under duress a great indicator of character

I realize you are all a bunch of weak-willed appeasement minded slackers but the military has an assumption that you will fail in the hands of a reasonably determined foe. All we ask is you hold on as long as you can.

I also realize that a number of you are now fantasizing about me in a Khmer Rouge like camp, being 're-educated'

[Seerak]

And what "damage" was caused by these horrific public policies? You didn't state any.

I guess a more efficient way to use precious taxpayer money would be to send all "undesirables" to the gas chambers?

Ah, our palette of choices, according to the Left -- be a slave to your fellow man, or else. Altruism to the Left of us, sacrifice to the Right!

Here's the possiblity inconceivable to such mentalities: returning the taxpayer's money to the taxpayers, to use as they see fit. I know, I know, call me radical...

That being said, I am reminded of LBJ by George W. Bush far more than Obama -- and not just because the latter hasn't gotten started yet.

Granted, only one new federal department was born under Bush's watch (Homeland Security), but it's the biggest one in 50 years, if Ron Paul is to be believed. Then there's Medicare Part D.. and for all those McCain fans out there, campaign finance reform.

There's even an expensive war raging, though LBJ didn't actually *start* Vietnam, IIRC... and of course there is the inflation that came after the bill for the Great Society came due, returning for a rerun.

And of course there's also the fact that LBJ was a Democrat, for all the difference that makes.

[whiskey]

Obama is NOT like LBJ, because LBJ, coming out of FDR's administration and patronage operation, deliberately jiggered government to "give" lots of patronage goodies to ordinary people: Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

The Voting Rights Act already had support, as people were de-facto segregated in suburbs and didn't care to struggle to keep Blacks out of political power in the cities.

What Barack Obama is, really, with no historical analogy is a HARD LEFT ELITIST. There's never been a figure like him. Add the BLACK NATIONALISM which everyone knows, his MUSLIM SYMPATHIES, and so on and he's the "enemy" of the white working and middle class.

He won't win OH or FL (his campaign has already conceded those states) nor KY or WV or really any of the traditional battlegrounds. Obama is trying to use the media worship, rich white yuppie + Black vote to get him over the top and it's a failure.

Blacks are only 12.5% of the population, and rich white yuppies probably less. White blue collar men are the largest demo group at 25% -- anyone seriously think they'll vote for the "Leon" character, privileged but always whining about racism while his Black Nationalist pals scream "God Damn America!" or his Eminem priest screams about 401Ks being "racist" ... I mean really?

Obama will get the tragically hip crowd, which makes a lot of buzz/hype/noise but is very small, and will lose Joe Brown-bag at lunch.

I blogged about that here:

http://whiskeys-place.blogspot.com/2008/06/can-barack-obama-win-with-youth-vote.html

If you want the nauseating breakdown (all numbers lifted from US Census Bureau).

I expected a giant series of middle class panders from Obama, instead he's all bothered about Global Warming (instead of "drill now for cheap gas!") to save the polar bears. He wants and said so: HIGHER GAS PRICES! His only beef is the rate at which it rose. His wife complained you can't buy earrings for only $600!

Nothing in Obama's life prepared him to meet the demands of overwhelmingly white, middle class voters. He's had rich, hard-left radicals plus Blacks and it shows. He can't even do the sensible thing, say he'll nuke Iran into oblivion and have that be the end of it (cheap, effective, statement made) regarding Iran, it's nukes, and it's thirty year low-level war against America. Instead ... he wants to disarm nuclear-wise so America "sets a good example."

Classic way to lose an election ... this guy is Dukakis Squared.

[midwesttrooper]

Some late night thoughts on LBJ. His favorite phrase was "Come, let us reason together." (Sounds like the candidate now who will meet with anybody any time.) Read up on what happened when LBJ met with Kosygin at Glassboro NJ. LBJ had a honeymoon with the press for about a year and a half (63-mid65) and passed the Great Society, but in about the summer of 65 he pulled his dog's ears, and became shit with America immediately. HRC can relate to your worshippers turning on you in an instant.

[Larry]

I expect Obama to be a weak President, and that Congress will set policy. Obama will come in without any mandate beyond bolting from Iraq. He has done little to build alliances with Congress, having gotten where he is on the power of his oratory alone.

Further, I don't expect him to veto the Dem-only bills we'll see after the Dems increase their majorities in both houses.

Thus Congress will rule us. Hold on to your wallet.

[Tired of Smoke Rings]

Lost in the discussion of what kind of executive will the next president be is this. What will his margin of victory be? The best outcome, whether, Obama or McCain is for citizens sick of the quadriennial, two party, sham election ritual to vote for neither of these frauds. I would enjoy nothing more than seeing our newest maximum leader blather about his "mandate" to rule based on a plurality of the vote. Better to serve up a slice of humble pie as the first course to keep their eyes from being bigger than their bellys.