George McGovern and Lyndon Johnson

Opinion

Discovering Greatness in Lyndon Johnson

By GEORGE MCGOVERN        DEC. 5, 1999


As Published in the New York Times

Like many Americans, I was deeply opposed to Lyndon Johnson's pursuit of the Vietnam War. My views on the war have not changed, but my opinion of Johnson has. I believe now that with the exceptions of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt -- and perhaps Theodore Roosevelt -- Lyndon Johnson was the greatest president since Abraham Lincoln.

John Kenneth Galbraith called recently for a reassessment of Johnson, arguing that history was unfair in identifying his presidency primarily with the war. Professor Galbraith is on the mark.

The Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations were all wrong in Vietnam. This issue was central to my 1972 presidential run against Richard Nixon. But despite his involvement with the war, Johnson used his remarkable political skills to build the most far-reaching progressive domestic program since the New Deal. Johnson's opponents like to ridicule the Great Society, but what is wrong with an American president who envisions his nation as a great society? Johnson did more than any other president to advance civil rights, education and housing, to name just three of his concerns, through enactment of laws.

I now regret not devoting more time to praising the Johnson record at home. And I wish I had known earlier what the Johnson White House tapes, published two years ago, show: Johnson was agonizing over Vietnam policy from his first day as president until his last.

Johnson shared his doubts and fears about Vietnam primarily with Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I knew that both Johnson and Russell opposed American involvement in Vietnam when it was proposed to them as senators by the Eisenhower administration. The tapes show that they continued to have terrible doubts and regrets, even while publicly supporting the war.

On May 27, 1964, six months into his presidency, Johnson asks Russell on one tape, ''What do you think of this Vietnam thing?'' Russell answers: ''It's the damn worst mess I ever saw, and I don't like to brag. I never have been right many times in my life. But I knew that we were going to get into this sort of mess when we went in there.'' To which Johnson replies: ''That's the way that I've been feeling for six months.''

Russell answers: ''If I was going to get out, I'd get the same crowd that got rid of old Diem to get rid of these people and get some fellow in there that said he wished to hell we would get out. That would give us a good excuse for getting out . . . .''

''How important is it to us?'' Johnson asks.

''It isn't important a damn bit, with all these new missile systems,'' Russell replies.

Later, Johnson tells Russell: ''I've got a little old sergeant that works for me over at the house, and he's got six children, and I just put him up there as the United States Army, Air Force and Navy every time I think about making this decision, and think about sending that father of those six kids in there. And what the hell are we going to get out of his doing it? And it just makes the chills run up my back.'' To which Russell replies: ''It does me. I just can't see it.''

Later that day Johnson tells his national security adviser, McGeorge Bundy: ''I don't think it's worth fighting for, and I don't think that we can get out. It just the biggest damn mess I ever saw.'' To which Bundy replies: ''It is. It's an awful mess.'' Johnson makes a final observation to Bundy: ''It's damned easy to get in a war, but it's gonna be awfully hard to extricate yourself if you get in.''

I assumed in those years that Johnson was fully convinced of the soundness of his policy and not eager to consider other alternatives. I assumed the same was true of Senator Russell and his powerful allies in the Senate. If I had been privy to the mind of either Johnson or Russell, I would have assembled a group of a dozen senators and asked for a no-holds-barred meeting on Vietnam policy.
Such a group could have included J. William Fulbright, Mike Mansfield, Frank Church, Eugene McCarthy, Joseph Clark, George Aiken, John Sherman Cooper, Mark Hatfield, Robert and Edward Kennedy, Gaylord Nelson and Albert Gore Sr. Whether we could have made a difference, knowing that we were talking to a president tortured by his policy and looking for a way out, I do not know. I do know that I wish we had tried.

If it had been up to Lyndon Johnson, we would not have gone into Vietnam in the first place. It would be a historic tragedy if his outstanding domestic record remained forever obscured by his involvement in a war he did not begin and did not know how to stop.

George McGovern


A note:

It is interesting to note that the details of the meeting which took place at Johnson's ranch in Texas Hill Country between LBJ and George McGovern are still being with-held from the American people.

It is time to make all notes, audio and video recordings of this meeting available to the public.

LBJ endorsed McGovern for president at this meeting.

Apparently LBJ understood in endorsing McGovern we can't have both guns and butter as advised by liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith.

It is time for the LBJ Library in Austin, Texas to stop concealing these materials and release all of the materials relating to the Johnson-McGovern meeting.

The people must assert their voices for peace.

Trump is in the process of updating the U.S. "strategy" for when nuclear weapons will be used...


Once the nuclear bombs are dropped and nuclear missiles are launched, our only defense will be to bend over, put our heads between our legs and kiss our ass good-bye.


A suggestion:

This might be a good time to think about the need for revitalizing a powerful mass united peace movement.

Another phony "leftist"

I have been meaning to comment for quite sometime about this “writer” referring to herself as a “rogue journalist” pretending to offer the U.S. left advice from Australia... Caitlin Johnstone.


She is part of this grouping trying to derail movement building by pushing this idea that the left and right have enough in common to work together.

She demeans efforts being made to impeach Trump and Pence as being detrimental to the left but encourages working with a Trump supporter like Mike Cernovich.


This is essentially the line which was used by Norman Thomas when he decided to work with the America Firsters instead of the People’s Front. With this line, Norman Thomas left the huge, powerful Socialist Party of the United States in ruins.


Ironically, these people pose themselves as some kind of super-leftists.


In the case of this Caitlin Johnstone, she is willing to work with a bunch of racist bigots like Mike Cernovich. How could any real leftist even suggest working with a scumbag like Cernovich?


Certainly not anyone who wants to build a united movement for real reforms and socialism which requires the unity of all people which requires a struggle against racism.


So, why are so many people claiming to be leftists providing money to Caitlin Johnstone to peddle her poison?


I have had leftists from the United States and Canada tell me they would never think of reading the ideas of people like William Z. Foster, Tim Buck, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Henry Winston, Gus Hall or Victor Perlo but they will peddle the poison being published by Caitlin Johnstone under the guise of leftism.


Want to read left wing thinking from Australia? Check out the Communist Party of Australia:


http://www.cpa.org.au


The U.S. and Canadian left is being bombarded in the same way by writers associated with this outfit Syriza in Greece... which, not coincidentally, has formed an alliance with a bunch of outright fascist bastards. Well, why not read what the real left in Greece has to say about things? The Communist Party of Greece (KKE). They have a web site, too:


https://inter.kke.gr/en/firstpage/